The NationStates Feminist Thread II

by **Swith Witherward** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:05 pm

THE NATIONSTATES FEMINIST THREAD II

Mission
This thread is dedicated to supporting feminism and the promotion of women's rights; it is a place to educate, uplift and nurture the younger generations.

Some topics you may encounter here are...

Some behaviors that will not be tolerated here are...

Links
I've provided a few links here. Please send a TG to me if you would like an organization listed, or if you have links to resource sites or other information. I'll add my own links cache within the next few days.

4 June 2015 update
Fris and Mod Team Address Recent Thread Lock and Unlock:

Frisbeeteria wrote:
Two significant policy questions were embedded in the threadjacking report. As such, these questions needed the input and discussion of the entire NationStates Moderation Team. After significant deliberation, we are now ready to hand down our ruling.

The first question, which is a more general one, involves the limiting of a (group) thread to ONLY certain participants or points of view. It's our ruling that NSG threads cannot do this. You cannot make a group thread for whatever topic and then limit it to strictly pro (or anti) side. NSG is a discussion forum, threads are open to allow discussion, even if you don't happen to like that discussion. Just because someone posts disagreeing with the general trend of the topic that is not prima facia evidence of trolling. That said, there are (usually) obvious differences between one off posts of going into, say, the Christian thread and screaming "Christianity is STUPID!" and posting "I think Christianity is false, and here's why...". It might be anti-Christian, but it does allow the pro side to engage in discussion.

Indeed, if we may, we would like to point out that Swith Witherward's engagement of "The group of you seem very happy to tell each other what feminists do and do not believe. Perhaps it would be more prudent to ask us what we believe. You see, we're such a diverse group that we won't all agree, but at least you'll gain perspectives that run far deeper than your currently limited viewpoint." is exactly how we would like to see these threads work, kudos to her for that!

Going to the second question, was it trolling and/or threadjacking to post something anti-feminist? No. Using the above, we find that some of the posters in question, while posting an anti-spiel, stuck around to debate and argue. They engaged, which tells us that this is what should be happening in NSG's threads. It should be noted however that one involved player turned out to be Delete-On-Sight and so was dealt with on those grounds.

The thread is hereby unlocked. Thank you for your patience.

--The NationStates Moderation Team

*blushes at the compliment*

An excellent point was raised above. Once again, let's continue to strive to express things in a way that engages and encourages dialog.

Also... please don't hesitate to send links to resources. I'd love to add them to the OP.

Let's set the tone for the thread.

Yes, I certainly am... although I don't invest much time into arguing those opinions online. The reason I volunteered to make this thread is twofold: I'm not heavily involved in the heated feminist discussions in NSG, and I'm known for my patience and fairness, ergo my motive is simply to promote feminism in its myriad of forms rather than to promote only my opinions on what feminism is or isn't.

One of the things we frequently see on forums is the disparagement of those that don't promote our particular principles. "You aren't a feminist if you don't embrace [fill in the flavor]." People form a conception of what we are and what we should believe without ever realizing that feminism is profoundly diverse.

Disagreements between feminists over principles are mostly due to that rich diversity within the feminist movement. People are welcome to promote their views here, by the way, provided they conform to NS policy. However, for the sake of this thread, we should endeavor to agree that we disagree on what exactly is the best principle and practice. We are not here to convert anyone to our specific approach to feminism. We are here to advocate women's rights and to support feminism in general. (er... no pun intended!)

A quick reminder: Moderation gave this thread the nod however our ability to keep it functioning rests on our shoulders. Please be civil towards one another.

ANNOUNCEMENTS
NA

As always... it's a megathread. Feel free to drift from this initial topic.

by **The Serbian Empire** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:09 pm

The Senate bill sounds good in theory, but does it mean that people under certain medications would only be able to consent when not on their meds as all medicines are effectively "drugs".

by **The Alexanderians** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:11 pm

The Serbian Empire wrote:The Senate bill sounds good in theory, but does it mean that people under certain medications would only be able to consent when not on their meds as all medicines are effectively "drugs".

Heh, some people couldn't consent while OFF them.

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:13 pm

The Serbian Empire wrote:The Senate bill sounds good in theory, but does it mean that people under certain medications would only be able to consent when not on their meds as all medicines are effectively "drugs".

I'm pretty sure the bill goes into more detail than "drugs". I'll have to check though.

by **Swith Witherward** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:15 pm

The Serbian Empire wrote:The Senate bill sounds good in theory, but does it mean that people under certain medications would only be able to consent when not on their meds as all medicines are effectively "drugs".

That's one of the things I was questioning but have not had the time to research. I honestly need to delve deeper into it because it does seem to me that this law could easily be abused.

by **The Serbian Empire** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:16 pm

The Alexanderians wrote:
The Serbian Empire wrote:The Senate bill sounds good in theory, but does it mean that people under certain medications would only be able to consent when not on their meds as all medicines are effectively "drugs".

Heh, some people couldn't consent while OFF them.

The bill leaves too much ambiguity on what is a drug to the point if it's illicit drugs then both rapist and victim may be doing hard time for rape and drug possession respectively.

Wallenburg wrote:
The Serbian Empire wrote:The Senate bill sounds good in theory, but does it mean that people under certain medications would only be able to consent when not on their meds as all medicines are effectively "drugs".

I'm pretty sure the bill goes into more detail than "drugs". I'll have to check though.

And what classifies as a drug is vital before we start making people on anti-depressants as unable to consent as their brain isn't in a nature state.

by **The Alexanderians** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:17 pm

Swith Witherward wrote:
The Serbian Empire wrote:The Senate bill sounds good in theory, but does it mean that people under certain medications would only be able to consent when not on their meds as all medicines are effectively "drugs".

That's one of the things I was questioning but have not had the time to research. I honestly need to delve deeper into it because it does seem to me that this law could easily be abused.

Most of the things that deal with one person's word against another's will be easy to abuse. Most consent laws and proposals fall under this.

by **The Serbian Empire** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:21 pm

The Alexanderians wrote:
Swith Witherward wrote:That's one of the things I was questioning but have not had the time to research. I honestly need to delve deeper into it because it does seem to me that this law could easily be abused.

Most of the things that deal with one person's word against another's will be easy to abuse. Most consent laws and proposals fall under this.

It almost makes me think this bill is the worst idea since alcohol prohibition. It seems great on paper until one sees how broad "drug" is. It could mean anywhere from discouraging victims from coming forward if it's illegal drugs only to if it's all medical drugs to the point that radical feminists would rampage tossing men behind bars like no tomorrow.

by **The Alexanderians** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:24 pm

The Serbian Empire wrote:
The Alexanderians wrote:Most of the things that deal with one person's word against another's will be easy to abuse. Most consent laws and proposals fall under this.

It almost makes me think this bill is the worst idea since alcohol prohibition. It seems great on paper until one sees how broad "drug" is. It could mean anywhere from discouraging victims from coming forward if it's illegal drugs only to if it's all medical drugs to the point that radical feminists would rampage tossing men behind bars like no tomorrow.

And besides weed sex is best sex.

by **Wallenburg** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:25 pm

The Senate bill stipulates that consent cannot be assumed if:

(B) The complainant was
incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.

So the question revolves not around the substance involved, but whether a substance had rendered the complainant incapacitated.

by **The Alexanderians** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:25 pm

The Serbian Empire wrote:
The Alexanderians wrote:Most of the things that deal with one person's word against another's will be easy to abuse. Most consent laws and proposals fall under this.

It almost makes me think this bill is the worst idea since alcohol prohibition. It seems great on paper until one sees how broad "drug" is. It could mean anywhere from discouraging victims from coming forward if it's illegal drugs only to if it's all medical drugs to the point that radical feminists would rampage tossing men behind bars like no tomorrow.

I mean it's a heart in the right place kind of thing, but I foresee a lot of things going sideways real fast.

by **The Serbian Empire** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:25 pm

The Alexanderians wrote:
The Serbian Empire wrote:It almost makes me think this bill is the worst idea since alcohol prohibition. It seems great on paper until one sees how broad "drug" is. It could mean anywhere from discouraging victims from coming forward if it's illegal drugs only to if it's all medical drugs to the point that radical feminists would rampage tossing men behind bars like no tomorrow.

And besides weed sex is best sex.

In other words, this bill could backfire very badly dependent on what is a drug.

by **The Alexanderians** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:26 pm

The Serbian Empire wrote:
The Alexanderians wrote:And besides weed sex is best sex.

In other words, this bill could backfire very badly dependent on what is a drug.

Joking aside it could backfire on getting marijuana decriminalized, by making it more difficult.

by **Galloism** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:27 pm

The Serbian Empire wrote:The Senate bill sounds good in theory, but does it mean that people under certain medications would only be able to consent when not on their meds as all medicines are effectively "drugs".

That's not what it says - it says that a person cannot consent if incapacitated by drugs or alcohol to the extent that they cannot understand the "fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity."

That's a pretty high bar. A person who's had 3 drinks and is a little tipsy is not raped if they have sex, because after three drinks at the realm of "a little tipsy", they can still understand the fact, nature, and extent of sexual activity.

However, if the person is so high they think they're reincarnated Elvis and are having dinner with a clone of Winston Churchill when in fact he's hallucinating while a woman rides him, he's raped.

by **The Serbian Empire** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:29 pm

Wallenburg wrote:The Senate bill stipulates that consent cannot be assumed if:
(B) The complainant was
incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.

So the question revolves not around the substance involved, but whether a substance had rendered the complainant incapacitated.

And where does the point of incapacitation begin? When the words slur?

by **The Alexanderians** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:31 pm

The Serbian Empire wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:The Senate bill stipulates that consent cannot be assumed if:

So the question revolves not around the substance involved, but whether a substance had rendered the complainant incapacitated.

And where does the point of incapacitation begin? When the words slur?

This is starting to sound like our own WA...I love it when life imitates art.
They don't have any definitive point or definition.

by **The Serbian Empire** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:32 pm

Galloism wrote:
The Serbian Empire wrote:The Senate bill sounds good in theory, but does it mean that people under certain medications would only be able to consent when not on their meds as all medicines are effectively "drugs".

That's not what it says - it says that a person cannot consent if incapacitated by drugs or alcohol to the extent that they cannot understand the "fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity."

That's a pretty high bar. A person who's had 3 drinks and is a little tipsy is not raped if they have sex, because after three drinks at the realm of "a little tipsy", they can still understand the fact, nature, and extent of sexual activity.

However, if the person is so high they think they're reincarnated Elvis and are having dinner with a clone of Winston Churchill when in fact he's hallucinating while a woman rides him, he's raped.

I bet it wouldn't be prosecuted as such as there's people who believe women can't rape.

by **The Alexanderians** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:34 pm

The Serbian Empire wrote:
Galloism wrote:That's not what it says - it says that a person cannot consent if incapacitated by drugs or alcohol to the extent that they cannot understand the "fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity."

That's a pretty high bar. A person who's had 3 drinks and is a little tipsy is not raped if they have sex, because after three drinks at the realm of "a little tipsy", they can still understand the fact, nature, and extent of sexual activity.

However, if the person is so high they think they're reincarnated Elvis and are having dinner with a clone of Winston Churchill when in fact he's hallucinating while a woman rides him, he's raped.

I bet it wouldn't be prosecuted as such as there's people who believe women can't rape.

Depressingly so

by **Galloism** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:36 pm

The Serbian Empire wrote:
Galloism wrote:That's not what it says - it says that a person cannot consent if incapacitated by drugs or alcohol to the extent that they cannot understand the "fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity."

That's a pretty high bar. A person who's had 3 drinks and is a little tipsy is not raped if they have sex, because after three drinks at the realm of "a little tipsy", they can still understand the fact, nature, and extent of sexual activity.

However, if the person is so high they think they're reincarnated Elvis and are having dinner with a clone of Winston Churchill when in fact he's hallucinating while a woman rides him, he's raped.

I bet it wouldn't be prosecuted as such as there's people who believe women can't rape.

Sadly, this is an all too true reality, but that is how the bill defines it.

by **Galloism** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:37 pm

The Serbian Empire wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:The Senate bill stipulates that consent cannot be assumed if:

So the question revolves not around the substance involved, but whether a substance had rendered the complainant incapacitated.

And where does the point of incapacitation begin? When the words slur?

When the person cannot understand either the fact, the nature of, or the extent of the sexual activity.

So if the person can't realize they are having sex, or don't realize what sex means, or is unaware to what extent the sexual activity is actually occurring.

by **The Alexanderians** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:40 pm

Galloism wrote:
The Serbian Empire wrote:I bet it wouldn't be prosecuted as such as there's people who believe women can't rape.

Sadly, this is an all too true reality, but that is how the bill defines it.

I wish there was a bill that made it nationally recognized what rape actually entailed. Including "forced to penetrate". I might make working on reducing rape simpler.

by **Galloism** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:45 pm

The Alexanderians wrote:
Galloism wrote:Sadly, this is an all too true reality, but that is how the bill defines it.

I wish there was a bill that made it nationally recognized what rape actually entailed. Including "forced to penetrate". I might make working on reducing rape simpler.

Many of the laws do - TCT did a post on it once - but public perception is slow to catch up.

It's kind of like how we very rarely prosecute statutory rape when the minor is a boy (hence why it's published so broadly when we do), even though we know it's oddly common. Because "he wanted it" or some such. Then we are unlikely to convict on top of that even if it is prosecuted, and even if successfully convicted, the judge usually hands out a paltry sentence.

by **The Alexanderians** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:47 pm

Galloism wrote:
The Alexanderians wrote:I wish there was a bill that made it nationally recognized what rape actually entailed. Including "forced to penetrate". I might make working on reducing rape simpler.

Many of the laws do - TCT did a post on it once - but public perception is slow to catch up.

It's kind of like how we very rarely prosecute statutory rape when the minor is a boy (hence why it's published so broadly when we do), even though we know it's oddly common. Because "he wanted it" or some such. Then we are unlikely to convict on top of that even if it is prosecuted, and even if successfully convicted, the judge usually hands out a paltry sentence.

of two years compared to a decade...
What I mean is make it a national issue should make it a kick in the pants. People would become more aware, through it being a big name thing.

by **Allanea** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:59 pm

You might want to add The Association of Libertarian Feminists

by **Swith Witherward** » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:09 pm

Allanea wrote:You might want to add The Association of Libertarian Feminists

Done. Thanks!

The NationStates Feminist Thread II

The NationStates Feminist Thread II

Who is online