People in the skeptical and atheist movements often ask, “Where are all the women?” We’re here, but we’re still a minority. The next question someone will ask is, “How can we get more women to feel welcome?” Greta Christina hit the nail on the head during her talk at the Secular Student Alliance conference:
Defend us.
I don’t mean you have to act like our knight in shining armor, swooping in to save us frail women when someone says something particularly nasty. Implying that we can’t defend ourselves is belittling. But joining us in calling shenanigans on sexism helps us feel welcome.
For example, Greta commented on why GLBT people felt so comfortable in the atheist community. Whenever she would read something homophobic in a forum or blog comments, a swarm of straight allies would descend to rip that idiotic argument to shreds.
When you’re in the minority, it helps to know that even the majority has your back. For one, it gets tiring being the only one defending a certain topic – and when you’re already in the minority, you can devote a considerable amount of time and effort to its defense. For once Greta didn’t have to lift a finger, and that felt good. But more importantly, it lets you know that you have allies. It’s a lot easier to feel comfortable in a community when you know others got your back.
Life isn’t quite as pleasant when you go around assuming all men are misogynistic pricks. And the vast majority of feminists do not believe that, despite our man-hating stereotype. But that stereotype is so persistent because there are women who are on their guard – I’m sure we’ve all met at least one by now. But when you think of it, it makes sense. When all women see are either misogynistic men or silent men, it’s easy to incorrectly lump the silent ones with the misogynists.
The same thing happens with Christians. Christians who are homophobic, misogynistic, and downright nasty are in the minority. But when pro-gay, feminist, friendly Christians are silent, we wrongly assume that the silent ones are the same as the unsavory ones. It means a lot to see a Christian group actively defending gay rights because it makes gay rights seem less like a secretive minority agenda.
And the same holds for women. The more men rip apart sexist arguments without needing prompting, the more comfortable women will feel. I love it when a sexist asshole comments here and is absolutely obliterated by my blog readers – it makes me feel safe in my community.
Now, I don’t mean you should blindly defend everything any woman ever says. Women can be wrong too, and yes, even women can say sexist things sometimes. But I do recommend counting to ten before calling out a woman as saying something sexist. I’ve seen a lot of comments here and elsewhere who think they’re calling out sexism, but are actually pretty damn sexist. If you feel like you need to brush up your knowledge on sexism, I’d recommend the Feminism 101 FAQ.
I think PZ is an excellent example of an ally. For example, take the end of his post on the Girls Gone Wild “implicit consent” debacle (emphasis mine):
As you might guess, skeptical women are clear that this was a violation, and they can reasonably feel threatened by such a decision, but even worse — they can feel threatened by fellow skeptics and rationalists who react inappropriately to this case. I was left feeling rather queasy about the discussion on the JREF forums. A good number of people did respond appropriately, deploring the decision, but quite a few others react by either making jokes about breasts (way to make women welcome, guys), or by legalistic analyses that justify it in various ways, which all boil down to the “she was asking for it” defense, with a bit of the “she was too greedy to ask for so much compensation” argument.
Look. It’s simple. Violations of personal liberty are wrong. There is no reasonable excuse to justify pulling someone else’s clothing off in public, against their will. There is no reasonable excuse for profiting off such actions. Don’t even try to defend it, accept it and move on. Don’t make jokes about the inherent humor in assaulting women. Don’t make it easier for women to be made uncomfortable in the presence of men.
[…]There has been a lot of discussion of “dicks” in the skeptical community lately, where “dicks” are people who are rude and brash. I think we’ve been using the wrong definition. If you’re someone who does any of the above, or who thinks with a pretense of calm rationality that we can justify what happened to that woman, then you are a DICK with capital D-I-C-K.
So, men, if you want more women in the skeptical and atheist movement? Call out the dicks.
This is post 15 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.
You are on a roll, Jen! This is an excellent post. You’re 100 percent right about how hard it is when allies don’t speak up, or worse yet, don’t act like allies. It seems like another side of the “show us your tits!” response to Boobquake.
>>”And the vast majority of feminists do not believe that, despite our man-hating stereotype. But that stereotype is so persistent because there are women who are on their guard – I’m sure we’ve all met at least one by now.“Everyone I’ve met irl who’s identified as a feminist has been the man-hating type that tosses the word “dude” around like a four-letter word, which has made it very hard for me to want to identify myself as a feminist.I’m all for equality between the sexes. It’s absolutely vital, I think, if we’re trying to craft a society with the largest amount of happy, contented people. Women are just as capable as men in every field. And men are just as capable as women in every field.I can see how feminists would feel unwelcome in the skeptic and atheist movements, but I think we ought to all meet in the middle. Let’s make men feel more welcome in the feminist movement, and make the “show us your tits!” crowd feel less welcomed in the skeptic and atheist movements, at the same time.
As was pointed out to me over in the comments on the relevant thread on http://skeptifem.blogspot.com/ ,I get a few extra respect points just because I have a penis. It isn’t particularly flattering, but I accept that I get a break because I’m male, and a half-break because I can pass for a white male. I’m required to stand up for my sisters, not because they are incapable of speaking out, or because they have nothing to say. I shouldn’t do it because I would like more women to join the skeptical or atheist movements. I have to do it because some of my less-enlightened brothers are too pig-headed stupid to effing listen, so it falls to me to scream at them because maybe they’ll hear me.
Well, I can’t follow you and PZ on the GGW thing. Even though the spin makes it look terrible, the reality is that even though putting that footage out in their video is an exercise in assholishness on the part of GGW, they weren’t being sued for pulling her top off, they were being sued for putting footage on their video that the woman didn’t want seen.There are laws against people pulling the tops off of other people. It’s called sexual assault. GGW didn’t sexually assault the woman, they just filmed it during a period where she implicity gave consent to be filmed. She wasn’t saying no to being filmed, she was saying no to having her shirt taken off.This is exactly the reason that it is hard for men to support feminism in all the areas that women would have us support it. If it is pro-feminist to get upset about people being assholes like GGW was in this instance, that’s fine, but if I am expected to agree that GGW doesn’t have the right to publish the footage, I am no longer pro-feminist.This isn’t necessarily just a feminist issue anyway. If I were up dancing for a camera and someone came up and yanked my pants down, I would not be terribly happy if that footage were to make it into a video, but I can’t say they don’t have the right to publish it even if it were a man.
I actually agree that the situation with GGW is unethical, and should be opposed. However, this makes me wary:”Don’t even try to defend it, accept it and move on. “Maybe it’s just my roots as a philosopher, but in my most humble opinion, anything we’re “not allowed” to talk about is a breeding ground for wrong thinking. As soon as we make it taboo to dissent, we start ourselves on the road towards dogmatic thinking.I’m not saying that I have a defense for these actions, nor am I saying that you’re incorrect. The community SHOULD come to the aide of the downtrodden. But if someone did have a defense, I think we should listen to it and consider it rationally. At the very least, we might help them better understand the situation and come to terms with their own unconscious prejudices. Who knows, they might even make a good point now and again.But again, my kind are well known for talking too much, and doing too little.
>>”She wasn’t saying no to being filmed, she was saying no to having her shirt taken off.“She made it clear she was okay with being filmed, she made it clear she didn’t want her exposed breasts filmed (as was mentioned in the article), someone other than the film crew exposed her breasts… and then?And then the terms of consented filming were broken. GGW was clearly in the wrong to publish their video, and it’s appalling that anyone could believe otherwise.Like you said, if you were in the same situation, you suddenly wouldn’t approve of the video being published. You would no longer give your consent for being filmed, just like she did.
She made it clear that she didn’t want to take her top off. The photographer didn’t take her top off, someone else did.As for what I said about suddenly not approving the video being published, that doesn’t matter. Permission to use the video is implied by giving consent to take the video in the first place. I also wouldn’t want a video of me looking into the sky and having a bird poop in my mouth, but that unfortunate piece of video would be out of my control if I gave permission prior to the incident.Like I said, it’s unfortunate. GGW are assholes, but they did nothing illegal.
There’s a bit of a difference between sexual assault and a bird pooping in your mouth, though.We both agree that GGW are assholes right now… but I think any further argument here would require a bit more legal understanding of GGW’s terms than we have.I still, however, contend that her consent to be filmed was conditional, and that those conditions were broken. But alas, I’m not a lawyer.
Just found your blog via Pharyngula. Adding it to my morning blogroll now! (and yes, this is morning for me – I sleep way too late)That being said: This whole GGW thing is ridiculous. I’ve absolutely condemned this sort of voyeurism for years. All of the comments I’ve heard about how “GGW was within their legal rights” just goes to show the vast divide between the law and morality – one does not equal the other.
When were the conditions placed? Where she didn’t have a consent form, and she didn’t specify limits on what may be filmed, she essentially gave consent to be filmed unconditionally by playing for the camera.
It’s only hard to support feminism in this case if you don’t accept that women (and men) have the right to NOT have nonconsensual images of their bodies released, let alone sold for profit.If you’re finding it hard to understand that, then no, feminism is not right for you.
From the article:”she can be heard on camera saying “no, no” when asked to show her breasts.”I’d say that sounds like limits on what may be filmed.
My experience has been quite the opposite, I’ve never met someone who identified as a feminist who could be called a ‘man hater’. Although, with the circles I run in the feminists I know are also sex-positive atheists, so maybe you get more hatred of men in the circles that are more anti-porn anti-sex.
This seems to be a similar theme to another group I’m heavily involved in, motorcycle enthusiasts. Very few women are involved, yet I can barely even point to any particular argument or discussion where guys were sitting around saying women shouldn’t be involved. To the contrary, women that show any interest in getting involved are (IMO) over-enthusiastically encouraged to join in.That is why I’m always a bit baffled by this argument. I can’t say I know of anyone personally that would look down on women joining the men-majority groups, quite the contrary. I think women that join such groups, if anything, get TOO much attention, fawned over.Of course, maybe this is a sign of sexism, but I’m not sure how you could demand that men NOT give a crap about women joining, and going out of their way to make them feel welcomed.I’m not addressing the story referred to, just speaking generically.
“she essentially gave consent to be filmed unconditionally by playing for the camera.”Ummm… No…Playing for a camera is not a blank signed consent form to present whatever is done for whatever audience you choose. Also, if she were dancing at a bar how is that specifically ‘playing for the camera’? She did not consent to be filmed nude, that section of film should have been left on the cutting room floor and never made it to production.
I’m sure it’s why racism and sexism are so prevalent. People (myself included) are prone to stereotyping entire groups just based on a moderately small sample size.It’s one of the reasons I like this blog so much. It gives me a different (and, I might add, pleasant) view of feminism that I don’t get irl.But yeah, the only one’s I’ve met are the anti-porn, anti-sex, anti-men types.
She gave consent to be filmed. The nudity makes no difference unless there is a previous agreement that was broken. That didn’t happen in this case.
Consensual is the issue here. Implied consent is the bugaboo. She was found to have given implied consent. Just because something embarrassing happened while she was being filmed, that doesn’t mean her consent was rescinded.
I doubt it’s ever OVERTLY “I don’t want women in this group.” In my personal experience, it’s more that I’m accepted (even as you say, overly enthusiastically) merely because of my gender, ie “Oh look, some tits to look at!” Sometimes men don’t bother to look at my face. Sometimes they ignore my comments, as if I hadn’t made them, though if a man makes them they’re welcomed and discussed. When I mention I’m a nerd, I’m told “That’s hot!”, as if that affirmation was why I identify that way. Basically, interaction in a group is frequently defined by my gender, rather than my personality. In groups where that is the case, I generally avoid them. And I know that I’m not the only one.I also tend to avoid groups where things like “pussy” and “you’re such a girl” are used as insults. There’s nothing quite like hearing my gender used as an insult to make me uninterested in further associations.
Overeager acceptance, tokenism, and claims about tokenism, are always going to arise while groups start to balance out and become more accepting. Yes the lady who joins the group gets treated special, yes that is a token black guy, we do these things in the hope that the group well demonstrate an inclusive behavior which will make special treatment and tokenism unnecessary.
She said, repeatedly, “No.” What part of no = nonconsensual are you not getting? Once again, if you have trouble with that premise, then feminism is NOT for you.
From the article:”she can be heard on camera saying “no, no” when asked to show her breasts.”The filming was consensual. The filming of her breasts was clearly not. This is more than just “something embarrassing,” and I don’t think “sexual assault” is too extreme a label here.Seriously, like Lorelei said, >>”I don’t think anyone here would suggest that if someone who had consented to be on camera was raped and it was caught on film, that video could then be sold as porn.“
She said no to her exposing her own breasts. She was violated by someone else and got filmed. That is not covered by her refusal to expose herself. The two acts are totally separate.I know it seems like I have no feelings on the matter. I really do feel bad for the woman, but the reality is that the law doesn’t envision every single scenario prior to it happening. In this case unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a law that protects this woman.
There are a lot of really solid sex-positive feminist blogs out there, they make for some great reading too. I really enjoyed this evaluation of Fight Club http://thehathorlegacy.com/tox… .There are a lot of great articles there.
The nudity makes all the difference in the world, it’s the difference between being filmed and a sexual violation. Consenting to be filmed and consenting to be filmed nude are two completely different things. TBH, I’m a little dumbfounded at your inability to grasp that concept.
Finally, my lack of social graces can be an asset for once.
While I agree with 99% of Jen’s post here I must admit that I was very disappointed in PZ’s reaction to this story. He declares by fiat that the decision was wrong, any dissent with his position is automatically wrong, and if you even attempt to argue with him you are a “dick”. Such a dive in to such dogmatic statements emotional appeals seems so unlike him. IANAL but there appears to be a valid argument to be made. While the actions of GGW are morally reprehensible in every way, it is conceivable that they acted in accordance with the letter of the law thus rendering the decision “correct” if not particularly “just”. Suggesting that someone is a bad person for pointing this out is somewhat disturbing to my love of skepticism and rational discourse. I guess it’s true that all skeptics do have blind spots and I can certainly forgive PZ his.
I think Lorelei summed it up best:>>”It’s so clearly wrong, and if the law disagrees, the law is fucking wrong, too.“Even if the decision was correct in a specifically technical legal sense, you’re a dick of you mention it without elaborating (at great length) how totally deplorable it is that it is legally correct.As PZ puts it:>>”If you’re someone who… thinks with a pretense of calm rationality that we can justify what happened to that woman, then you are a DICK with capital D-I-C-K.“He’s not saying, “you’re a dick if you disagree with me.” He’s saying the same thing Lorelei did.
What lorelei said:“It’s so clearly wrong, and if the law disagrees, the law is fucking wrong, too.”And frankly, if you were at all interested in being an ally, that would be obvious and easy for you to acknowledge. Instead, it seems to be more important to you to point out that she consented to being filmed, and therefore everything that happened on film, whether she consented to it or not, is a-okay. That is fucking creepy. It is rape apologist logic, and it’s disgusting. This isn’t my blog, so I’m not going to get ragey, but I’m done with this discussion. I am uninterested in listening to some douche explain why he feels sorry for a woman, but really she consented to being assaulted and having it broadcast when she danced in a bar in front of a camera.
As PZ puts it:>>”If you’re someone who… thinks with a pretense of calm rationality that we can justify what happened to that woman, then you are a DICK with capital D-I-C-K.”He’s not saying, “you’re a dick if you disagree with me.” He’s saying the same thing Lorelei did.QFT
First of all, I don’t see this as a feminist issue. This is an issue about whether or not consent should be automatically rescinded as soon as a crime takes place, or even worse, when an embarrassing situation happens. Just because the victim at issue in this instance is a woman doesn’t make it a feminist issue.Now, I never said what I do and don’t support. I said that the decision was correct.
As for douche, how douchey is it to strawman someone? I never said that she consented to being assaulted. I am saying that she consented to being filmed, and for whatever happened to her while being filmed to be broadcast. In her particular case, something illegal happened, but that doesn’t remove her consent.Now, your comment is exactly why this has become so much of an issue. You don’t realize that there are two totally separate things going on here, and you are more interested in being upset than you are about the truth of the situation.
Yeah, just look at how I’ve been treated for pointing out that the decision was legally correct.Apparently if you agree that the law was not broken, you are suddenly saying that the woman deserved to be sexually assaulted, and that GGW is wonderful for putting it in one of their videos.
I don’t think there’s an equivalency between men feeling comfortable in the feminist movement and women feeling comfortable in the skeptical movement. The feminist movement is about combatting sexism against women, and frankly that sexism often favors men (it’s more nuanced than that, but this is a blog comment, after all, not an essay). That’s not always going to be comfortable for men to hear. As a white person, anti-racist work often makes me uncomfortable, because *I benefit from racism*. Anti-racist activists don’t have an obligation to hide that in order to make me feel comfortable, and I’d be an asshole to ask them to.There’s nothing inherent in skepticism that should make women uncomfortable. Religious people, sure, but not women.
Are you reading Greta Christina? If you want sex-positive, atheist, feminist blogging, you’ve got to read Greta Christina. (Or even if you didn’t care about that other stuff and just wanted the great atheist blogging.)
I think I’m a feminist, even if I’m not always a very good one.But I can assure that I hate men. (And some women, too.)
“Basically, interaction in a group is frequently defined by my gender, rather than my personality.”But your gender stands out, so it draws more attention. That was the point I was trying to make, to some extent. If you stand out, you will be treated differently, even when the inclusion of your minority is viewed as a good thing.Is ALL attention to the minority bad? If so, it would seem all heavily slanted groups will be unwelcoming to minorities. But that is a self defeating attitude.
Well yeah, feminism is inherently slightly anti-man, just because it aims to take away the advantages and benefits men get from sexism… and I’m totally okay with that, in the same sense that I’m okay with anti-racists denying me my advantages for being white. I shouldn’t have these advantages, I feel, so I’m glad to help balance things out with the non-whites and non-males.And yeah, there isn’t really an equivalency, you’re right, between the inherently slightly anti-man feminism and skepticism, which holds no anti-gender sentiments whatsoever…. but there is a similarity, you have to admit. Men can feel unwelcome in the feminist movement, and women evidently feel unwelcome in the skeptic movement. I see a compromise as being nothing but beneficial, though, since both feminism and skepticism have nothing but good to offer.I guess what I mean to say is that I’m not turned off by the feminist movement because it’s denying me some benefits; I’m turned off by the unnecessary anti-man sentiments.
Bookmarked!You’ll forgive me if I don’t get to reading it right away; Jen’s eating up all my time with her blogathon, lol :)
This Greta Christina, I presume?http://gretachristina.typepad….She’s definitely in my blogroll now. Thanks for the recommendation! :D
Upon a second read I can see that interpretation. That does make more sense considering what I’ve come to expect from PZ. Though I’d still argue that it could have been expressed significantly better. (Like exactly what Lorelei posted, for example)
Well, so let’s really get to the root of the issue here. Do you think it should be legally correct?
I’m not Godlessons, but I see this as three separate issues.Should it be legal to openly (not hidden cameras) film someone in a public place without explicit consent? Yes, absolutely. Otherwise news crews could not film anyone. Should it be legal to profit from the incidental filming of a crime? I think so. Zapruder was well compensated for his footage of the Kennedy Assassination and most people don’t see a problem with that. So, I don’t think its the filming of a crime that’s the issue. Should it be legal to distribute and profit from incidental filming of unintentional nudity? No, this should require specific written consent. If it does not in the place where the incident under discussion occurred, then the law should be changed.
I won’t argue with you there :)
Regarding your first point, I agree completely.Regarding your second, we only approve of Zapruder’s video of the Kennedy Assassination because of its incredible historical importance. People reacted to, say, Cannibal Holocaust and the eating of a live turtle on screen very differently. I think the Zapruder film is an exception to the otherwise common belief that people shouldn’t profit from filming illegal activity.Regarding your third point, I’m with you there, too.
Tony made some good points. I pretty much agree with them. As for point number 3 though, I don’t see where nudity deserves more deference than any other type of embarrassment. I know it is more generally considered too embarrassing than bird poop in the mouth on video for instance, but I don’t see why. It seems like a totally subjective arena.I personally would be more upset having a video showing me getting bird poop in my mouth than a video of someone pulling my pants down. Should we also have a law about that? Where does the line get drawn.So, I guess the answer is, I am in favor of something that would stop these kinds of things from happening, but I am not sure what would possibly do it without being too over-broad.
The “defense” is that by being in a bar and acting flirtatious with a GGW camera she implied consent to be filmed semi-nude, despite the fact that somebody else exposed her against her will and she audibly said no as they were doing it.Okay so the “defense” has been heard/read. Repeatedly. The “defense” is bullshit.Moving on then.
“The” defense, and “A” defense are two absolutely different things. Please understand that I in no way feel that “the” defense, or even any defense I’ve heard or can conceive of is compelling enough to make this situation anything less than outrageous and disgusting. I oppose only the idea that expressing a defense–even a speculative defense–should be somehow taboo.
Being fawned over is pretty uncomfortable too. It’s either because somebody wants sex or a woman doing things like fixing cars or computers is like a dog play the piano.Or some combination of the above.
Let’s say you go out for beers with your friends and I happen to be at the bar with some video equipment. You sign no consent form. For shits and giggles, you ham it up for my camera. As I’m filming you, somebody comes up from behind and depantses you. You’re buck naked from the waist down. As you scramble to pull your pants back up and regain your dignity, I keep filming. A couple years later you find out that I sold the video to a wide audience for masturbatory purposes and made lots of money off of it.You try to sue me, but the jury determines that by being at the bar and not running away from my camera you implied consent to me filming your naked crotch and profiting off of it.You’re cool with that?Also, do you think the court would have come to the same decision if it was your male body that was used sexually and for profit against your will?
And of course the first order of business for several dudes on this thread is to justify it.Or I’m not justifying it, I’m just saying blah blah blah…
I oppose only the idea that expressing a defense–even a speculative defense–should be somehow taboo.You’re opposed to not being free to defend profiting off of a person’s naked body against her will? Super.Besides, it’s the same defense over and over and over. It’s been heard. Rephrasing it a hundred different ways doesn’t magically make it not bullshit.
Truthfully, I personally wouldn’t be terribly embarrassed if that happened to me. Like I said in another post, I would be more embarrassed if a bird pooped in my mouth on camera. I guess you didn’t see the post where I said that.Anyway, I understand the problem, I honestly do. Most people are much more concerned about modesty than I am. They would be terrified to think that nude pictures of them were out there being used for whatever purposes.Read my other posts though. I have answered most of this question multiple times.As for whether or not the court would come to the same decision, I think it is more likely that the jury would have sided with the woman than they would with me. Women generally are more sympathetic to courts than men are. Unfortunately for this woman, but fortunately for the legal system, the jury seems to have overlooked her gender and come to the correct decision under the law, whether or not you agree with it.
I did read your other comments. You’re wrong and so was the court, whether you like it or not.Women generally are more sympathetic to courts than men are. Wow. You really need to read more about sexual assault cases. Seriously.
exactly. That is why I find it uncomfortable. Ironically, I’m also in the automotive repair industry, and women are nonexistent in that field also. Seeing a woman interested in joining the ranks is much like seeing a dinosaur walking down main street. It is simply unheard of.That in no way suggests that men are unwilling to give room to women in the field, however, it is so unprecedented, it is impossible to pretend no one is going to not gape and overreact one way or the other.*I* find it uncomfortable the way some men react, however, I can’t deny that I react differently also, although in different ways. It is almost impossible not to, since it is so….”abnormal”. No negative references suggested with that word.
Well when I was in I.T. a lot of the guys I worked with offered me unsolicited “help,” assuming I was less proficient than anybody else at the job I was hired to do. I also got a lot of hovering accompanied by “are you sure you know what you’re doing.” Being regularly asked whose secretary I was kind of sucked too. And there was that supervisor who assumed I was a vain nitwit who wanted a glamor job despite the fact I got my hands dirty and lugged 50lb monitors around as much as he did. He also hit on me.Some men were cool, but they were an exception. I wouldn’t say men in the general sense are happy to have women in male-dominated fields as much more than eye-candy or office mommies.
You mean I should pay attention to cases like where female teachers have sex with their male students? What about murder sentences? What about divorce cases? Women have the advantage when it comes to the legal system. Don’t even try to pretend they don’t.Now, if you disagree, maybe you could post a link that supports your statement. I certainly can post many links supporting mine. I would start with a female serial killer that ended up only serving a little over 13 years in jail after murdering 4 children and attempting to murder 2 others. What man would ever get that break?Do I even need to post links about the soft sentences women child rapists get? Are you going to argue with me when I say that women tend to get the better end of things, especially child custody, in divorce cases?Now, I know that most of this is sympathy about criminals and not victims, but I don’t see how female victims are less sympathetic than female criminals, and I certainly don’t see any evidence that female victims are less sympathetic than male victims.
You should pay attention to the fact that a lot more male teachers sexually harass and assault female students, but collectively don’t get anywhere near the press coverage Debra LaFave did, yes.You could also check into the conviction rate for rapes that are taken to court, and the typical justifications for non-convictions (“implied consent” turns up quite often) or measly sentences even in cases where the victims are children. Or how many rape kits sit in storage for years.Perhaps you could find a source of information that’s not an MRA blog.
Perhaps you could bring something up that isn’t a total non sequitur. We were talking about how sympathetic women are in court, apparently you thought we were talking about things that have no bearing on that. The rest of this crap has nothing to do with anything. How does the number of men that have sex with their students being higher then the number of women have anything to do with the sentencing disparity for example.Apparently you aren’t serious about addressing the issue. If you are, please refrain from strawmanning me and stick to the subject.
You’re still not getting off your lazy ass and doing your own research? I suppose I’ll spoon feed you this once to get you started..http://www.womensenews.org/sto…http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06…http://www.chicagotribune.com/…http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_…http://www.wnol.info/?p=783http://hiphopwired.com/2010/06…http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ne…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…How does the number of men that have sex with their students being higher then the number of women have anything to do with the sentencing disparity for example.Though anybody who refers to sexual assault of underage kids as “have sex with” I don’t have much hope for. Same goes for somebody who doesn’t recognize how the media’s disproportionate coverage of LaFave and ignoring all the male teachers who prey on their female students has anything to do with how “sympathetic” women are in court.
I’m done with you. You are having some other argument that has nothing to do with anything I said, or anything said in the OP. Instead you want to fight strawmen. Have fun.
HA HA HA HA HA!
You sir, are exactly the problem we are talking about.
What about journalist Cathy Young? She’s actually an agnostic rather than atheist, but she has a fair and unbiased attitude towards religion, neither excusing wrongs done in its name but not demonizing it unnecessarily.
Wonderful post. I think that drives home the point that you shouldn’t sit in silence when someone is being a narrow-minded jerk. Are we worried about offending the douche bags?
Is atheism a movement? What are the aims of denying the existence of something?
“Implied consent is a form of consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather inferred from a person’s actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation (or in some cases, by a person’s silence or inaction)”You saying that she gave implied consent to be video taped doing whatever? … well, from her actions she IMPLIED that she did not want to be taped naked … whether she ended up naked due to an assault or otherwise … She was saying no to taking off her clothes therefore IMPLYING that she did not want her breasts to be taped … in other words, she GAVE NO IMPLIED CONSENT… does that explain this a little for you? because if it doesn’t then you are basically not interested in understanding …
There are many situations in the law where people are able to film, photograph, record voice etc. In other situations they are not allowed to do so. When you are in one of those situations where it is permitted, you have shown that you have given up your right to privacy, merely being in those situations.When Britney Spears got out of the car with her cooter hanging out and the picture was plastered everywhere, the photographer was within his rights because she is a public figure in a public place, and wasn’t covered up.Similarly, when Tara Reid’s breast fell out while on the red carpet, those videos went out all over the place, and it’s not because she gave permission. The fact that she covered up immediately after noticing should have obviously shown she didn’t want it shown to the world, yet all those pictures and videos went out anyway. In these situations, these people had no expectation of privacy under the law, just like the woman at issue.I understand what you are saying completely. I also understand why you are wrong. This was a situation where the law is pretty damn clear, the ruling given on the case bears that out, and no amount of incredulity on your or anyone else’s part is going to change that. If you don’t like it, change the law.