The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[North Washington Republic]

Rape victims not "mentally incapacitated" if they got drunk on their own, Minnesota Supreme Court rules

I had trouble copying and pasting the text of the article, but it’s not behind a paywall.

Anyway, I think that this was a bad decision because a drunk person cannot possibly give consent, but I am interested in cases where both parties are heavily intoxicated and engage in sexual activity. Is it the man’s responsibility to determine if a woman too intoxicated to probably give consent. If the man is also too intoxicated to give consent, does this mean the women is also guilty of rape?

]

[Galloism]

Rape victims not "mentally incapacitated" if they got drunk on their own, Minnesota Supreme Court rules

I had trouble copying and pasting the text of the article, but it’s not behind a paywall.

Anyway, I think that this was a bad decision because a drunk person cannot possibly give consent, but I am interested in cases where both parties are heavily intoxicated and engage in sexual activity. Is it the man’s responsibility to determine if a woman too intoxicated to probably give consent. If the man is also too intoxicated to give consent, does this mean the women is also guilty of rape?

]

The effects of that ruling are not good to say the least. Whether it’s legally correct or not I feel like I would need to read the underlying laws, but the effects are no good very bad.

Edit: So here’s the case:

https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/me ... 032421.pdf

Basically, the court said that the felony the person was charged with was inappropriate based on the law, and it appears the type of conduct, based on the law, was actually a high level misdemeanor. Basically, the law treats sexual contact with surreptitiously administered intoxicants differently than one where they were consumed voluntarily.

As defined, “mentally incapacitated” under law, to raise the crime to a felony, requires the substances be administered without the knowledge or consent of the victim. IE, spiking the punch bowl, as it were.

Everyone agrees it’s still a crime, but it’s a matter of degree.

Sounds like the legislature has some work to do.

[Esalia]

What do you all think of the prospect of gender abolition, or the elimination of a gendered culture (i.e. stereotypical clothing, divides between genders, etc)? Gender abolition essentially retains gender binary, but does away with stereotypes and the social divides between genders.

I'm okay with ending various gendered expectations. Most of the ones related to being male I want dead ASAP, so I can get on board with that.

But "gender abolition" to me implies, well, the abolition of gender, not just gendered roles. That would have many a negative effect from invalidating the identities of anyone with a strong connection with their gender to (if the abolition isn't so total as to completely eliminate any and all gendered divides) hamstringing the government/society and preventing them from dealing with gender issues.

[The Blaatschapen]

What do you all think of the prospect of gender abolition, or the elimination of a gendered culture (i.e. stereotypical clothing, divides between genders, etc)? Gender abolition essentially retains gender binary, but does away with stereotypes and the social divides between genders.

I'm okay with ending various gendered expectations. Most of the ones related to being male I want dead ASAP, so I can get on board with that.

But "gender abolition" to me implies, well, the abolition of gender, not just gendered roles. That would have many a negative effect from invalidating the identities of anyone with a strong connection with their gender to (if the abolition isn't so total as to completely eliminate any and all gendered divides) hamstringing the government/society and preventing them from dealing with gender issues.

How can there be gender issues if there is no gender?

[Fahran]

I mean what is misgendering but someone else cancelling your gender? It is basically saying no we reject your claim of self-identification.

We, as a society, reject persons' claims to self-identification on a pretty routine basis. The issue with making self-identification the lynchpin behind gender and, by extrapolation from the argument you made earlier, sex is that you can't define the distinctions in a satisfactory manner and people simply don't work like that out in society. As an example, a gay man is not going to assume I'm a man and ask me out because I look and act like a woman. If I identified as a man but did not adhere to the gender roles associated with being a man in any meaningful way, no stranger is going to read me as a man and even those who know me are going to have a difficult time suspending the extensive preconceptions they have about both sex and gender to view me as a man.

With gender dysphoria specifically, a lot of this is built into how people perceive and relate to themselves. I think there's very real potential harm in telling people with gender dysphoria that their concerns are inconsequential or the result of internalizing gender norms and presentation that don't have an impact in any meaningful way. I also think it ignores people's actual experience in favor of abstract theorizing in the post-modern tradition, theorizing that is ultimately self-defeating.

[Fahran]

1. We don't need gender roles, they do nothing but cause harm and restrict individuals into boxes that can easily lead to social ostracization, violence, and gatekeeping.

A significant portion of our relations between men and women are defined and dictated by gender roles, gender presentation, and gender characteristics. As an example, how do you personally identify someone sitting down next to you on a bus as a man? How do you identify the same person as a woman? Or do you ask for the pronouns of every single person you encounter? Your gripes here are with a very specific set of gender roles, not the entirety of the social script that goes behind being a man, which involves quite a few more.

2. Manhood=Have a penis or identify as male (Or both), Womanhood=Have a vagina or identify as female (Or both)

So, until you see a person's genitalia or ask their pronouns, you seem them as genderless?

3. I just did!

You don't seem to actually disagree with Auz then.

4. Most gendered behavior is meaningless drivel though. It's actually been proven that gender roles really only exist for agricultural societies, larger technologically developed societies and hunter-gatherer tribes are much more egalitarian compared to settled tribes. (Some are even totally egalitarian)

Gendered behavior is pretty plainly present in our society at the moment. It was present for a good many pastoral populations in the past and was present in the San culture when they remained hunter-gatherers. Gendered distinctions may be less pronounced, but I don't buy that they were or are wholly absent in such societies.

Gender is real, but trying to create hard and ridged boxes about how it should be is probably the most destructive thing you could do.

I'm not trying to create hard, rigid boxes. I'm pointing out that these distinctions do exist in actuality and that they serve a functional purpose in our society. Again, I'm not here to exclude non-binary people or non-passing transpeople. Hence why I mentioned struggling with this point, but I don't think we can get away from differentiating people and, even if we could, it would not be desirable to do so. It would make all of the data we've cited in this thread next to meaningless.

[Fahran]

How can there be gender issues if there is no gender?

We can't.

Just like we can't have racial issues if we pretend not to notice that white people and black people look different, have different identities and shared experiences, and are treated differently by society and institutions.

[Fahran]

Sounds like the legislature has some work to do.

Yeah, that's still pretty yikes.

[Sundiata]

I don't follow.

Hey Sun, I want to know your input on this one.
Are women less self-aware than men?

No, sorry for not answering earlier.

[New haven america]

1. We don't need gender roles, they do nothing but cause harm and restrict individuals into boxes that can easily lead to social ostracization, violence, and gatekeeping.

1. A significant portion of our relations between men and women are defined and dictated by gender roles, gender presentation, and gender characteristics. 2. As an example, how do you personally identify someone sitting down next to you on a bus as a man? How do you identify the same person as a woman? Or do you ask for the pronouns of every single person you encounter? Your gripes here are with a very specific set of gender roles, not the entirety of the social script that goes behind being a man, which involves quite a few more.

2. Manhood=Have a penis or identify as male (Or both), Womanhood=Have a vagina or identify as female (Or both)

3. So, until you see a person's genitalia or ask their pronouns, you seem them as genderless?

3. I just did!

4. You don't seem to actually disagree with Auz then.

4. Most gendered behavior is meaningless drivel though. It's actually been proven that gender roles really only exist for agricultural societies, larger technologically developed societies and hunter-gatherer tribes are much more egalitarian compared to settled tribes. (Some are even totally egalitarian)

5. Gendered behavior is pretty plainly present in our society at the moment. It was present for a good many pastoral populations in the past and was present in the San culture when they remained hunter-gatherers. 6. Gendered distinctions may be less pronounced, but I don't buy that they were or are wholly absent in such societies.

Gender is real, but trying to create hard and ridged boxes about how it should be is probably the most destructive thing you could do.

7. I'm not trying to create hard, rigid boxes. I'm pointing out that these distinctions do exist in actuality and that they serve a functional purpose in our society. Again, I'm not here to exclude non-binary people or non-passing transpeople. Hence why I mentioned struggling with this point, but I don't think we can get away from differentiating people and, even if we could, it would not be desirable to do so. It would make all of the data we've cited in this thread next to meaningless.

1. And a significant portion of male/female social relationships have historically been fucked up. Thanks for proving me right I guess.
2. Why do you care so much about the gender and personal identification of those around you? Are you trying to hit on people during your bus rides?
3. Nope.
4. Auz evidently would disagree on this claim.
5. No actually, the vast, vast majority of gendered behavior is learned. Most of humanity could literally stop acting with gendered behavior within a year or so given the chance.
6. They are for the most part, yeah. The San you mentioned are the exception, not the rule.
7. What you say and what you preach are 2 entirely different things.

[The Blaatschapen]

I am mostly concerned if somebody next to me on the bus is not wearing their mask.

[New haven america]

I am mostly concerned if somebody next to me on the bus is not wearing their mask.

I thought most of Europe stopped wearing them?

[The Blaatschapen]

I am mostly concerned if somebody next to me on the bus is not wearing their mask.

I thought most of Europe stopped wearing them?

Dunno about most, but it's still very much a rule in my whereabouts.

[Fahran]

1. And a significant portion of male/female social relationships have historically been fucked up. Thanks for proving me right I guess.

I'm not really contesting that part of the claim. I'm absolutely contesting the notion that we can make do without any sort of gender roles and that they do nothing but cause harm. Without defining our terms and engaging in gatekeeping on some level, we have no way of avoiding what approximates an attempt at gender abolitionism since presentation, behavior, and roles are how we identify the gender of a person on a routine basis. That's why gender is a social construct rather than an abstract identity or an essential quality.

We don't need gender roles, they do nothing but cause harm and restrict individuals into boxes that can easily lead to social ostracization, violence, and gatekeeping.

Here was your initial claim. I think it's a very reductionist take. While a good many gender roles should be removed or loosened to allow greater flexibility in gender expression, the abolition of gender roles is nearly indistinguishable from the abolition of gender as a whole.

2. Why do you care so much about the gender and personal identification of those around you? Are you trying to hit on people during your bus rides?

Because gender, despite the refusal of some ideologues to acknowledge it, absolutely informs how people interact with one another and one's experience in society. I have no interest in hitting on people on bus rides since I'm in a committed relationship, but I figured I'd pose the question to see what your answer would be. Because I don't really buy that folks here don't engage in the social construction of gender on a routine basis. Unless you go around asking for pronouns.

3. Nope.

That kinda contradicts your previous point, especially if you use anything beyond secondary sexual traits to construct gender. Mind you, people don't have to adhere to every gender role to belong to a particular gender, but the range of behaviors, attitudes, clothing, modes of speech, controllable physical appearances, etc. that we associate with masculinity and femininity often help to inform how we construct and identify gender. You seem to associate gender norms solely with very abstract and often negative social roles within a gender dichotomy, but that's perhaps a touch simplistic.

4. Auz would disagree on this claim.

Auz literally defines gender as a form of self-expression or self-identification as far as I can see. Based on your initial post, it was my impression that you had the same mindset.

2. Manhood=Have a penis or identify as male (Or both), Womanhood=Have a vagina or identify as female (Or both)

This seems to be how she/they (Auz, feel free to correct me if I'm getting the pronouns wrong here) defines gender. She/they simply seems to have taken the next logical step in acknowledging that such a definition lacks sociological function, coherent reason/logic, and, as a result, meaning beyond the subjective experience of a single person or narrow community of persons who accept self-identification as the determining factor, without regard to or for anything else.

5. No actually, the vast, vast majority of gendered behavior is learned. The vast majority of humans could literally stop acting with gendered behavior within a year or so given the chance.

Gendered behavior being learned and social rather than innate and biological doesn't really refute my point here. I also think you're oversimplifying how easy it is to remove sociologically functional learned behaviors from a population, especially when such behavior is the result of generations being socialized as infants and toddlers and such socialization seems to have been functional enough to preserve society with gradual changes from generation to generation.

6. They are for the most part, yeah. The San you mentioned are the exception, not the rule.

This doesn't appear to be true.

Forager societies tend to value egalitarianism, cooperative autonomy, and sharing. Furthermore, foragers exhibit a strong gendered division of labor. However, few studies have employed a cross-cultural approach to understand how forager children learn social and gender norms. To address this gap, we perform a meta-ethnography, which allows for the systematic extraction, synthesis, and comparison of quantitative and qualitative publications. In all, 77 publications met our inclusion criteria. These suggest that sharing is actively taught in infancy. In early childhood, children transition to the playgroup, signifying their increased autonomy. Cooperative behaviors are learned through play. At the end of middle childhood, children self-segregate into same-sex groups and begin to perform gender-specific tasks. We find evidence that foragers actively teach children social norms, and that, with sedentarization, teaching, through direct instruction and task assignment, replaces imitation in learning gendered behaviors. We also find evidence that child-to-child transmission is an important way children learn cultural norms, and that noninterference might be a way autonomy is taught. These findings can add to the debate on teaching and learning within forager populations.

Source

It's a serious error to conclude that gender egalitarianism means that gender norms are wholly absent from a society.

7. What you say and what you preach are 2 entirely different things.

Not really given the societies you identified as lacking gender roles and thus being ideal do in fact have gender roles.

[Galloism]

Sounds like the legislature has some work to do.

Yeah, that's still pretty yikes.

Although I generally concur in principle that drugging someone and then raping them is worse and should be punished more harshly than just raping someone who's incapacitated of their own volition...

A misdemeanor?

What the hell?

A misdemeanor??????

[Fahran]

Although I generally concur in principle that drugging someone and then raping them is worse and should be punished more harshly than just raping someone who's incapacitated of their own volition...

A misdemeanor?

What the hell?

A misdemeanor??????

I would think raping and/or sexually assaulting someone who was too intoxicated to consent would be a felony all on its own. Drugging someone and then raping and/or sexually assaulting them could likely constitute a more severe felony for the sexual violence on the one hand, since there are fewer doubts about premeditation, and an additional felony for drugging someone on the other. Really, I'm perpetually annoyed by how our laws and criminal justice system handle sexual violence - for one reason or another.

Laws often perpetuate nonsense like this, whether it's not counting rape as a felony or maintaining that men can't be raped. Convicted rapists often get a slap on the wrist, such as Brock Turner got, especially when they're rich and have social connections. When schools get involved in the process, which isn't criminal justice, they either don't afford the accused any reasonable defenses or they do their best to shut victims up or both. I'm just over it.

[The Blaatschapen]

Although I generally concur in principle that drugging someone and then raping them is worse and should be punished more harshly than just raping someone who's incapacitated of their own volition...

A misdemeanor?

What the hell?

A misdemeanor??????

I would think raping and/or sexually assaulting someone who was too intoxicated to consent would be a felony all on its own. Drugging someone and then raping and/or sexually assaulting them could likely constitute a more severe felony for the sexual violence on the one hand, since there are fewer doubts about premeditation, and an additional felony for drugging someone on the other. Really, I'm perpetually annoyed by how our laws and criminal justice system handle sexual violence - for one reason or another.

Laws often perpetuate nonsense like this, whether it's not counting rape as a felony or maintaining that men can't be raped. Convicted rapists often get a slap on the wrist, such as Brock Turner got, especially when they're rich and have social connections. When schools get involved in the process, which isn't criminal justice, they either don't afford the accused any reasonable defenses or they do their best to shut victims up or both. I'm just over it.

I agree here.

Raping is one crime. Drugging someone without their consent is another.

Given that the second one is usually done to commit the first, it only aggravates. It's malice aforethought.

And School/club/church/webforum justice ought to be subservient to justice from the court. And is in no way a substitution for it.

[Giovenith]

Alright, we've got a new Topics of Interest update!

Learn about the life of recently deceased Egyptian feminist Nawal El Saadawi, Dr. Sara Josephine Baker the health pioneer who saved the lives of 90,000 children with her work, and the continuing issue of legal virginity tests in the UK.

[Kowani]

what a headline
Swiss army to start allowing female soldiers to wear women's underwear for the first time

The Swiss army is set to allow its female recruits to begin wearing women's underwear for the first time in an effort to attract more women to the armed forces.

Armasuisse, the Swiss armed forces' procurement organization, made the announcement on Wednesday noting that two sets of women's undergarments for warm and cold weather will be tested beginning next month, CNN reported.

Women soldiers within the Swiss armed forces are currently issued men's underwear, Armasuisse told the news outlet. [P]revious army equipment and uniforms were too little or not at all geared to the specific needs of women," an Armasuisse spokesperson said, according to CNN.

The trial rollout of women's underwear will be part of a larger effort to update the Swiss military uniforms that were originally designed in the 1980s, CNN noted.

"During the development phase, the ergonomics of women, among other things, were taken into account," Armasuisse said.

Earlier this month, on International Women's Day, the Swiss Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport vowed to make an effort to attract more women to military service, saying that it wanted to create a "new service for women" and encourage "the reconciliation of military service, work, education and family," according to CNN.

Men and women soldiers in the Swiss army will continue to wear the same uniform, according to the outlet, however, updates, such as adjustable waistbands will now be included.

[The Blaatschapen]

what a headline
Swiss army to start allowing female soldiers to wear women's underwear for the first time

The Swiss army is set to allow its female recruits to begin wearing women's underwear for the first time in an effort to attract more women to the armed forces.

Armasuisse, the Swiss armed forces' procurement organization, made the announcement on Wednesday noting that two sets of women's undergarments for warm and cold weather will be tested beginning next month, CNN reported.

Women soldiers within the Swiss armed forces are currently issued men's underwear, Armasuisse told the news outlet. [P]revious army equipment and uniforms were too little or not at all geared to the specific needs of women," an Armasuisse spokesperson said, according to CNN.

The trial rollout of women's underwear will be part of a larger effort to update the Swiss military uniforms that were originally designed in the 1980s, CNN noted.

"During the development phase, the ergonomics of women, among other things, were taken into account," Armasuisse said.

Earlier this month, on International Women's Day, the Swiss Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport vowed to make an effort to attract more women to military service, saying that it wanted to create a "new service for women" and encourage "the reconciliation of military service, work, education and family," according to CNN.

Men and women soldiers in the Swiss army will continue to wear the same uniform, according to the outlet, however, updates, such as adjustable waistbands will now be included.

To be fair, the special forces never wears underwear.

They are going commando.

[Kowani]

French Senate has adopted an amendment to the "Law on Republican Values" which would prohibit "virginity certificates"

[North Washington Republic]

French Senate has adopted an amendment to the "Law on Republican Values" which would prohibit "virginity certificates"

Eh, this seems like the government getting too much involved with the bedroom. If an adult wishes to have a certificate proving their virginity, then I don’t think that the government should get involved.

[Alcala-Cordel]

If an adult wishes to have a certificate proving their virginity, then I don’t think that the government should get involved.

So an active Reddit account?

Jokes aside, I agree with you. For what reason does the government need to be involved in this?

Edit: no, I don't agree with you at all. I thought you were saying something else.

[Galloism]

what a headline
Swiss army to start allowing female soldiers to wear women's underwear for the first time

The Swiss army is set to allow its female recruits to begin wearing women's underwear for the first time in an effort to attract more women to the armed forces.

Armasuisse, the Swiss armed forces' procurement organization, made the announcement on Wednesday noting that two sets of women's undergarments for warm and cold weather will be tested beginning next month, CNN reported.

Women soldiers within the Swiss armed forces are currently issued men's underwear, Armasuisse told the news outlet. [P]revious army equipment and uniforms were too little or not at all geared to the specific needs of women," an Armasuisse spokesperson said, according to CNN.

The trial rollout of women's underwear will be part of a larger effort to update the Swiss military uniforms that were originally designed in the 1980s, CNN noted.

"During the development phase, the ergonomics of women, among other things, were taken into account," Armasuisse said.

Earlier this month, on International Women's Day, the Swiss Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport vowed to make an effort to attract more women to military service, saying that it wanted to create a "new service for women" and encourage "the reconciliation of military service, work, education and family," according to CNN.

Men and women soldiers in the Swiss army will continue to wear the same uniform, according to the outlet, however, updates, such as adjustable waistbands will now be included.

To be fair, the special forces never wears underwear.

They are going commando.

And off to AQ you go.

[Suriyanakhon]

French Senate has adopted an amendment to the "Law on Republican Values" which would prohibit "virginity certificates"

Eh, this seems like the government getting too much involved with the bedroom. If an adult wishes to have a certificate proving their virginity, then I don’t think that the government should get involved.

Virginity certificates perpetuate harmful and misguided ideas, so it's understandable that the French state would ban them for the good of society.