Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby ddxxdd » Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:34 am UTC

Forewarning: This thread is apt to trigger just about any trigger one might have. Please do not expect all instances to be adequately noted.

- Az


Here's a link to the full, 5-minute video of the protest. (Warning: cursing)

Here is a highlight from that video (Warning: more cursing and some vile language):
Spoiler:
Image

Here is a link to an abridged, 1 minute video highlighting increased tension between the students and the police

Here's one person's commentary on the incident:
The way these protestors are behaving is exactly the opposite of how you should strive to live your life. If someone wants to promote an idea, you don’t block the doors and keep people out (doing so only indicates you fear what they say). Instead, you throw open the doors, turn on the spotlights, turn up the microphone, and then invite the informed to debate, discuss, evaluate, weigh, measure, and work out whether there is truth in the idea.


Here is an official response from the University of Toronto Student Union:
Since the event, members of the UofT community have been harassed, slandered, and publicly shamed for speaking out against sexism on our campus. One student and community member has been profiled on anti-feminist/women website avoiceformen.com, and has been depicted as “the personification of Princess Cupcake”, “an utterly vile creature”, and “Hitler’s Barbie” among other things


What do you all think about this protest, and the actions of the protesters?

Edit: I probably should add that one thing that the feminists are protesting against is the alleged "rape apology" that Dr. Farrell has made in the past:
Spoiler:
Image
Edit: This was from the book he published 20 years ago. It had nothing to do with anything he talked about on November 16th, 2012.

According to his empirical research, a lot of men and women roleplay in a certain fashion that appears like date rape if taken out of context. Is this empirical research damning enough to warrant protesting his future appearances at conventions dedicated to men's issues?
Last edited by ddxxdd on Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Azrael » Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:04 pm UTC

If this thread starts down the path towards a Comic 1027-like quagmire, everyone who's posted gets banned.

Just. Saying.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Wed Dec 05, 2012 1:47 pm UTC

Well in that case I hope everyone else behaves. If not its been nice being here.

Protesting people you disapprove of is not an unreasonable thing. Nor is the correct way to settle everything by debate. Firstly there are many issues that are highly personal that can not easily be debated. As many of the flash points in arguments between feminists and mens rights advocates are issues that easily become personal (rape being a major, but by no means the only one) then debates may no be the best tool. Secondly winning a debate does not entail being right. Creationists often win evlotion vs creation debates, that does not make Creationism right it makes it simple enough to be explained easily in a debate. Debates leave little place for subtlety, or middle ground positions.

Now some points specific to the situation. If someone is clearly acting in a way that makes it clear they want sex but say no then we are not in a simple situation. Personally I could never be bothered with such attitudes and if there was and contradiction between verbal and body language I assumed the answer was no. I would also then have little to do with that person. This was a selfish attitude based on a desire to avoid the potential problems. Similarly it means if I asked someone out and they said no that was the end of it, a few times I later learned they were interested in me, but my attitude on this is simple they should have said yes.

However clearly we don't just value verbal communication. If someone says yes but clearly isn't wanting sex, looks scared or similar then I would not think we should say a timid verbal consent overrides, from a moral point, the blatant desire to avoid it. They could be afraid of violence or other things, or there are issues that should be worked out (for example some people are scared of losing their virginity, that doesn't mean the first time they have sex is rape but it does mean that caution around it is needed).

So is the reverse true, if someone is clearly enjoying themselves and wanting more then a verbal no should not make it rape, after all (as clichéd as it) the difference between "Don't stop" and "Don't. Stop!" is only punctuation. If someone is known to frequently say no when they don't mean it that doesn't mean they can't be raped though. Even if it is a situation where we believe the man has done enough legally to be difficult, or unreasonable, to prosecute when dealing with the woman and her needs of support we should treat it as if rape occurred. Saying things like "Well was it actually rape" at the point of her needing help is dangerous.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:17 pm UTC

sigsfried wrote: Even if it is a situation where we believe the man has done enough legally to be difficult, or unreasonable, to prosecute when dealing with the woman and her needs of support we should treat it as if rape occurred.


If you encode that as ank kind of official policy then the other side of the coin is that that is effectively assuming someone guilty with no possibility of being proven innocent. Which is also extremely dangerous. indeed there exists the possibility that something might not just "legally to be difficult, or unreasonable, to prosecute" but actually be wrong to prosecute.

but then this, as you said, is one of the flash points.
being sensitive to the feelings of a possible victim vs the possibility of utterly destroying the life of someone who may be totally innocent.

And you implicitly ignore that side of the coin.

I've not spent enough time reading up on this particular protest to say much about it but I gather people were being attacked for even listening to an unpopular speaker?

lots of issues raise massive massive emotional issues for people and the arguments against having a debate sound a lot like the ones made by the students for life group at my old uni when abortion or euthanasia was to be discussed and they blocked debate.
Last edited by HungryHobo on Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Wanting is not the same as consent though. I could be physically attracted to someone I otherwise despise. Just because I have an erection doesn't mean that person can force me to have sex with her.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ddxxdd
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:37 pm UTC
Location: New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby ddxxdd » Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:25 pm UTC

I just want to add this:

The quote regarding "rape apology" was written in his book "The Myth of Male Power", which was published in 1993. 20 years ago.

His current talk 2 weeks ago had nothing to do with the controversial material that he discussed 20 years ago.
I'm waiting for someone to say something worth sigging...

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:28 pm UTC

It is perfectly possible to support someone who claims to be raped (which is something her friends and relatives should be doing) without believing that the man should be prosecuted (which is not generally speaking something those close to the person raped should be doing). Excluding malicious false accusations whether something meets the legal definition of rape does not in anyway change the support the person needs.

Wanting is not the same as consent though. I could be physically attracted to someone I otherwise despise. Just because I want to have sex with such a person doesn't mean that person can force me to have sex with her.


Of course not but acting on that desire in all ways except one does not mean only what you say matters. To take an extreme example if you said "not today" and later you enthusiastically consent (even non verbally but do not verbally deny wanting sex) something you said hours ago does not make the encounter rape. Where exactly the line is drawn is difficult but it is clear many people do say no when not meaning it. While I personally don't want the stress that entails not every such encounter that starts with a no is rape.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Belial » Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:52 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:Instead, you throw open the doors, turn on the spotlights, turn up the microphone, and then invite the informed to debate, discuss, evaluate, weigh, measure, and work out whether there is truth in the idea.


Try debating an endorsed university speaker if they don't want you to. Try to follow up your points (likely shouted from the audience) with a statement to security about how you'd rather not be tazed. And then call them bro. They love it when you call them bro.

Saying that they should have turned it into a debate in which the best idea wins...is idiotic. It's recommending a course of action that is not actually available, as an attempt at a derail. Debate was not offered, and had they attempted to forcibly make it a debate, it would have been exactly as disruptive as their protest was, and would have been responded to with equal hostility. By suggesting that impossible course, he's betraying what he actually wants, which is for them to go away. In short, fuck that guy.

Delivering a seminar, especially one at which admission is charged, is privileged speaking time. It is entirely reasonable for the student body of a university to oppose their university (which is both their home and their occupation) offering privileged speaking time to someone whose views they find not only abhorrent but personally threatening. Bear in mind that rape apologia is not just an idea that feminists dislike, it's one that directly leads to violence against their persons. It was certainly not the most PR-aware way of protesting, but they're also college students who are still figuring out shit like "having strong opinions and being politic about expressing them".

So basically, feminists protest guy they see as perpetuating an idea that is a direct threat to them and people like them. MRA's flip their shit and demonize the feminists, because that's their entire reason for existing. Non-event.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:02 pm UTC

Belial wrote: MRA's flip their shit and demonize the feminists, because that's their entire reason for existing. Non-event.

You honestly believe that's the only reason for mens rights organisations?
That's about as fair as saying that feminist organisations only exist to demonize men.

there certainly are some who do, that can't be argued with but there's also plenty with legitimate concerns and issues.

example. these poor crazy sods:
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/fathers-4-justice.jpg
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Belial » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:08 pm UTC

Majority groups trying to "preserve their rights" in the face of a minority's quest for equality?

Pretty Much Like That, yes.

Please don't make this more difficult for me that it is already destined to be.

- Az
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:11 pm UTC

[rape triggers, especially date rape.]

...there may be "cursing" too I haven't decided yet.

Spoiler:
ddxxdd wrote:According to Ferrel's empirical research, a lot of men and women roleplay in a certain fashion that appears like date rape if taken out of context. Is this empirical research damning enough to warrant protesting his future appearances at conventions dedicated to men's issues?


Ferrel refers to a study conducted by feminists. He doesn't refer to any study conducted by himself, just to his work "with over 150,000 women and men". That's not empirical, that's anecdotal. Regardless, he's not telling the full story. Women have said no when they mean yes? What of women who have said no and meant no? Because when you're discussing date rape that is kind of a big part of the discussion to leave out. Does this justify the protests? I think it might be useful to plot the stakes out here regarding the outcomes of these dates. Excuse the heteronormativity I'm going to lay out here, I think it applies in the context of this discussion.

Woman says no but means yes, man stops: they don't get sex they wanted.
Woman says no but means yes, man continues: they both get sex they wanted.
Woman says no and means no, man stops: man doesn't get sex he wanted.
Woman says no and means no, man continues: woman gets raped.

Ferrel's reasoning implies that men not getting sex is more important than reducing the chances of women not getting raped, because why else would he argue against 'no means no'? And apparently, according to the empirical study that Ferrel cites, most of the time women say no they mean no. So yeah when people who have been rape victims or are supporters of rape victims decide to protest Ferrel's appearances I totally support that, no matter what Ferrel was speaking on. A men's rights movement which doesn't acknowledge basic, essential demands of the feminist movement is as counter-productive as a racist vegan movement or a transphobic atheist movement. You can champion men's rights without undermining women's movements, and part of that means not prioritizing men's desire for sex above women's right to not be raped.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

User avatar
hawkinsssable
Promoted
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 7:46 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby hawkinsssable » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:15 pm UTC

You know, I think that if there's one consistent, core message that feminism helps raise awareness of, it's how certain facts, questions and issues are rendered invisible to us, especially if we're placed in a relatively privileged position.

And if there's one core message Warren Farrell and his mens' rights ilk promote, it's to make sure the privileged never have to confront these difficult issues. The most relevant claims here probably being that “rape statistics are exaggerated”; rape is “much more complicated than the way feminists [have] portrayed it, as men oppressing women”, that “before we began calling this date rape, we called it exciting” (link) and that sexist, feminist social norms are to blame for girls' negative experiences of father-daughter incest, not the father's actions. (link) For anybody actively involved in feminist struggles, or any woman who has experienced date rape / incest, that's really going to strike a nerve.

Having him deliver a seminar at the Uni of Toronto confers a certain kind of legitimacy to his views (despite none of his 'research' being remotely academic and him having written nothing even citable in a first-year uni essay), and that's something well worth protesting, especially if you're as intimately associated with the institution hosting him as the student union.

I wrote a bunch of other stuff on this smug bit of rubbish ("they should have just engaged him in debate at his own seminar! Objecting to any kind of speech is nasty nasty censorship!") but Belial since wrote something so so so much better.
Last edited by hawkinsssable on Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:18 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Xeio » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:17 pm UTC

ddxxdd wrote:I just want to add this:

The quote regarding "rape apology" was written in his book "The Myth of Male Power", which was published in 1993. 20 years ago.

His current talk 2 weeks ago had nothing to do with the controversial material that he discussed 20 years ago.
Has he publicly denounced and/or apologized for this previous book? Because if not I'm not sure how the time differential matters.

Also, what exactly was the talk about? All I can find is that it was on "address issues that men and boys face in our society", how is that unrelated to the book?

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby omgryebread » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:25 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
Belial wrote: MRA's flip their shit and demonize the feminists, because that's their entire reason for existing. Non-event.

You honestly believe that's the only reason for mens rights organisations?
That's about as fair as saying that feminist organisations only exist to demonize men.

there certainly are some who do, that can't be argued with but there's also plenty with legitimate concerns and issues.

example. these poor crazy sods:
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/fathers-4-justice.jpg
Fathers 4 Justice is a pretty good example of why some parents should not have access to their children. No part of climbing a giant Ferris wheel or scaling up Buckingham police knowing that it will cause great disruption/end in you getting shot suggests "responsible parent" to me.

HungryHobo wrote:right time to ban us all.
all mens rights groups are basically the KKK and men cannot be discriminated against in any way.

End of discussion.it was fun.
It's sort of like the whole BET thing where racists ask why is there no White Entertainment Television, the answer being is that it's every other channel. So <rights of men/shows targeted to white audiences> are important, having something specifically for them is really stupid, because society in general favors those things.

MRAs specifically deny that society favors men which is so absurd as throw any legitimate concerns they have into great question.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:36 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Ferrel refers to a study conducted by feminists. He doesn't refer to any study conducted by himself, just to his work "with over 150,000 women and men". That's not empirical, that's anecdotal. Regardless, he's not telling the full story. Women have said no when they mean yes? What of women who have said no and meant no? Because when you're discussing date rape that is kind of a big part of the discussion to leave out. Does this justify the protests? I think it might be useful to plot the stakes out here regarding the outcomes of these dates. Excuse the heteronormativity I'm going to lay out here, I think it applies in the context of this discussion.

Woman says no but means yes, man stops: they don't get sex they wanted.
Woman says no but means yes, man continues: they both get sex they wanted.
Woman says no and means no, man stops: man doesn't get sex he wanted.
Woman says no and means no, man continues: woman gets raped.

Ferrel's reasoning implies that men not getting sex is more important than reducing the chances of women not getting raped, because why else would he argue against 'no means no'? And apparently, according to the empirical study that Ferrel cites, most of the time women say no they mean no. So yeah when people who have been rape victims or are supporters of rape victims decide to protest Ferrel's appearances I totally support that, no matter what Ferrel was speaking on. A men's rights movement which doesn't acknowledge basic, essential demands of the feminist movement is as counter-productive as a racist vegan movement or a transphobic atheist movement. You can champion men's rights without undermining women's movements, and part of that means not prioritizing men's desire for sex above women's right to not be raped.


OK but can't we also do:
Woman says yes and means yes, man stops: they don't get sex they wanted.
Woman says yes and means yes, man continues: they both get sex they wanted.
Woman says yes and means no, man stops: man doesn't get sex he wanted.
Woman says yes and means no, man continues: woman gets raped.

After all there are reasons for people to say yes, but not mean it (for example a third party may have blackmailed them).

Therefore using your logic all sex is wrong because of the risk of lack of consent. It also leaves no room for people to change there mind, say things they don't mean in the heat of the moment or anything else. To ignore body language in these areas is dangerous and could well leave us in a situation that is even worse.

To return to the scenario I used earlier, if my partner says in the morning "not today" and later seduces me do I have to follow the original "not today" even though it is clear that it is now something she wants? Clearly this is a root we do not want to go down.

Saying any sex that both people wanted, and were in no doubt the other wanted is rape, or comparable to rape, just because of the language they used (even if it was clear what they meant) is a profoundly arrogant attitude. It means saying to people who are happy that they had sex that they were raped. Which is both demeaning to them, telling them how they can go about their relationships and demeaning to people who are actually raped.



As for Men's rights advocates in general. Even if society is totally dominated by men and male ideas (something I am not convinced by though I don't deny women face widespread discrimination) that doesn't mean that it is wrong to object to the areas where men are discriminated against (though they are few notable examples include adoption rights where in many countries the mother is strongly favoured). Yes the overwhelming majority of feminists want equality but that doesn't mean they are likely to target as a priority the areas that benefit women. Unless you really believe no such areas exist but I strongly doubt that, after all when girls were as far beyond boys in academic performance as boys are now behind girls there was really strong arguments that the education system was biased against girls. Should we now accept that girls are just better and therefore there better academic performance is to be expected? Should we worry about the gender imbalance in physics, maths and computer science, but not in history, English literature and nursing?

Fathers 4 Justice is a pretty good example of why some parents should not have access to their children. No part of climbing a giant Ferris wheel or scaling up Buckingham police knowing that it will cause great disruption/end in you getting shot suggests "responsible parent" to me.


And willingness to throw yourself in front of the Kings horse in a race doesn't suggest rationality that is required to reasonably take part in democracy? Also why on earth should someone get shot for climbing those buildings?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:40 pm UTC

The problem I have with BET is that it assumes that Afromericans like STUPID things. Imagine if the world was reversed, and whites were the minority, where we talk about black privilege. Now imagine that Viacom creates WET. But the shows are things like Jerry Springer. It'd be insulting.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:43 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:Fathers 4 Justice is a pretty good example of why some parents should not have access to their children. No part of climbing a giant Ferris wheel or scaling up Buckingham police knowing that it will cause great disruption/end in you getting shot suggests "responsible parent" to me.


As much as any form of protest.
Do you even realise how hateful what you say is?

Imagine if someone came out with a statement implying that women who walked in slutwalk shouldn't have access to their children because walking around with hardly anything on doesn't suggest "responsible parent".

Really. try to imagine someone saying that to you and meaning it like you just meant what you said and how it would make you feel.

omgryebread wrote:It's sort of like the whole BET thing where racists ask why is there no White Entertainment Television, the answer being is that it's every other channel. So <rights of men/shows targeted to white audiences> are important, having something specifically for them is really stupid, because society in general favors those things.


No. no it is not. There certainly is a lot of male privalige but there's also lots of female privalige which you probably don't even acknowledge. it's a long long way from being a one sided thing. The biggest difference being women are the majority. In a democracy. And control ~50% of the wealth if declared assets from recent tax data is to be believed. Women are not an impoverished minority.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:57 pm UTC

Ok, I really should have read my last post through.

I should not have implied, even in jest, that women should not have been given the right to vote. There is no place for such comments and I accept that they are totally unacceptable. My intention was to point out the absurdity of omgreybread's post but that does not excuse what I said, there were better ways of making that point. It was insulting to everyone and I apologise. This includes omgreybread as I should not have implied that they would have supported such a position.

I leave it up to moderators as to whether they think it is best to leave it there, as an example of the sort of person I am, or to remove to prevent further offence.

I should have realised this even without the, not so subtle hint from HungryHobo, who did well to avoid directly taking on what I said as that could easily have reduced to a flame war.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby omgryebread » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:09 pm UTC

sigsfried wrote:To return to the scenario I used earlier, if my partner says in the morning "not today" and later seduces me do I have to follow the original "not today" even though it is clear that it is now something she wants? Clearly this is a root we do not want to go down.

Saying any sex that both people wanted, and were in no doubt the other wanted is rape, or comparable to rape, just because of the language they used (even if it was clear what they meant) is a profoundly arrogant attitude. It means saying to people who are happy that they had sex that they were raped. Which is both demeaning to them, telling them how they can go about their relationships and demeaning to people who are actually raped.
I'm not sure why this was spoilered, since it seems relevant to topic at hand, so I'm unspoilering because it's easier to have a conversation that way.

Your hypothetical sounds bad, but fortunately, society has created a workaround designed to be 100% effective in issues of communication where one party might be misreading the other party, and this radical technique of finding something out about what another person wants is called a question. You might try "Are you sure you want to have sex? Earlier today you said you didn't." Perhaps you might try "Oh yeah, are you ready for some o' my world-famous lovin'?" If you're overly formal and your relationship is weird, you could even go with "can I take this body language as a sign of consent for us to have sex?"

Fun fact: nowhere in this thread, including the post you quoted, claimed that a woman who said "no" but wanted sex and got it was raped.


As for Men's rights advocates in general. Even if society is totally dominated by men and male ideas (something I am not convinced by though I don't deny women face widespread discrimination) that doesn't mean that it is wrong to object to the areas where men are discriminated against (though they are few notable examples include adoption rights where in many countries the mother is strongly favoured). Yes the overwhelming majority of feminists want equality but that doesn't mean they are likely to target as a priority the areas that benefit women. Unless you really believe no such areas exist but I strongly doubt that, after all when girls were as far beyond boys in academic performance as boys are now behind girls there was really strong arguments that the education system was biased against girls. Should we now accept that girls are just better and therefore there better academic performance is to be expected? Should we worry about the gender imbalance in physics, maths and computer science, but not in history, English literature and nursing?
A lot of feminists, including myself, believe that the under-performance of boys in some areas is due to the existence and enforcement of traditional gender roles. Guys aren't caring, so they shouldn't be nurses. A lot feminism is about uprooting those traditional gender roles. MRAs are specifically not about that.

And willingness to throw yourself in front of the Kings horse in a race doesn't suggest rationality that is required to reasonably take part in democracy? Also why on earth should someone get shot for climbing those buildings?
I don't think Emily Davison's actions were in any way a good argument for suffrage, even though suffrage was a good cause. Just as fathers are a good thing, but Fathers 4 Justice is not. And uh, yeah, I think trying to infiltrate the home of the head of state is something that can reasonably get you shot. The police didn't here, which is good.

CorruptUser wrote:The problem I have with BET is that it assumes that Afromericans like STUPID things. Imagine if the world was reversed, and whites were the minority, where we talk about black privilege. Now imagine that Viacom creates WET. But the shows are things like Jerry Springer. It'd be insulting.
Yeah, I agree, though that's really a topic for elsewhere.

HungryHobo wrote:As much as any form of protest.
Do you even realise how hateful what you say is?

Imagine if someone came out with a statement implying that women who walked in slutwalk shouldn't have access to their children because walking around with hardly anything on doesn't suggest "responsible parent".

Really. try to imagine someone saying that to you and meaning it like you just meant what you said and how it would make you feel.
That would require a person to think that wearing minimal clothing is a thing that good parents don't do. I don't think that. I would think that person is wrong because of that. I think causing disruptions, wasting police time, and recklessly endangering yourself is a vastly different thing that wearing less clothing.

omgryebread wrote:No. no it is not. There certainly is a lot of male privalige but there's also lots of female privalige which you probably don't even acknowledge. it's a long long way from being a one sided thing.
Mmm. And this female privilege is...? It's in any way comparable to male privilege in what ways?

sigsfried wrote:It was insulting to everyone and I apologise. This includes omgreybread as I should not have implied that they would have supported such a position.
You missed my point (not that fathers shouldn't have rights, but Fathers 4 Justice is a terrible argument for them), but I didn't think anything you said was that bad and needed an apology.


Feeding the troll: Knock it off. Final quote and comment removed.

- Az
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10257
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby addams » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:17 pm UTC

Human Rights.

Both my Sisters and my Brothers are part of the Human Family.

Seems this family needs some basic rules.
It's not nice to link to the same materal over and over.

Everything I need to know, Robert Fulgum learned it all after grad school, in kindergarden.

Be Nice!
Wash your Hands!

Dirty minds? Brainwashed does not always leave the mind clean. What are you washing the brain with?

Men and women at odds? Why?!

Human Rights vs A Gentelmen's Club?

That I can understand.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:21 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:
A lot of feminists, including myself, believe that the under-performance of boys in some areas is due to the existence and enforcement of traditional gender roles. Guys aren't caring, so they shouldn't be nurses. A lot feminism is about uprooting those traditional gender roles. MRAs are specifically not about that.


Ah i see. we're basing this on your strawman idea of MRA's. that's nice.
believe it or not there's MRA's who share your goals.

of course if you base your opinion of all MRAs off what you see filtering onto feminist message boards then you'd get about as accurate picture as if you based your opinion of black rights groups on news reports about the black panthers in the 70's.


Mmm. And this female privilege is...? It's in any way comparable to male privilege in what ways?


You listed some of it.

I think causing disruptions, wasting police time


causing disruption like blocking streets with big crowds of people waving signs and wasting police time as the police have to put staff on to deal with the protest.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Роберт » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:30 pm UTC

addams wrote:Human Rights.

Both my Sisters and my Brothers are part of the Human Family.

Seems this family needs some basic rules.
It's not nice to link to the same materal over and over.

Everything I need to know, Robert Fulgum learned it all after grad school, in kindergarden.

Be Nice!
Wash your Hands!

Dirty minds? Brainwashed does not always leave the mind clean. What are you washing the brain with?

Men and women at odds? Why?!

Human Rights vs A Gentelmen's Club?

That I can understand.

Too true.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:33 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:Ah i see. we're basing this on your strawman idea of MRA's. that's nice.
believe it or not there's MRA's who share your goals.
I've genuinely never met, heard, or read about one.

I'm serious: Show me some of these 'good' MRAs. Because so far, my experience has been that every MRA out there is a knee-jerk reaction to feminism, rather than an attempt to address the (very real, very relevant, very important) challenges that men face in our culture.

If you can find me an MRA who is interested in supporting men--and not interested in attacking women--I will accept that being an MRA does not correlate in all cases with being anti-woman. So far, I have never seen such a case--so it is my continuing assumption that being an MRA is equivalent to being anti-woman.

Please, prove me wrong. I'm dead serious: I want to be wrong. Nothing makes me happier than seeing reasonable people expressing reasonable views. "We should address the challenges men face, but in doing so, we should not demean, belittle, or dismiss the challenges that women face" is a very reasonable view. I have never seen an MRA who expresses this very reasonable view. I would love to hear from one. But they seem to be disturbingly silent.

So, yeah. Please, point me to a representative for this mass of reasonable, intelligent MRAs--because from what I've seen, none of them seem to be participating in the dialogue. In fact, from what I've seen, people who are actually interested in addressing men's issues don't associate with the MRA. Because it seems to be clear that addressing men's issues isn't what the MRA is about.

Kind of like how the 'Family Research Council' really isn't interested in families--they're just interested in preventing gay people from having them.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby omgryebread » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:44 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:Ah i see. we're basing this on your strawman idea of MRA's. that's nice.
believe it or not there's MRA's who share your goals.

of course if you base your opinion of all MRAs off what you see filtering onto feminist message boards then you'd get about as accurate picture as if you based your opinion of black rights groups on news reports about the black panthers in the 70's.
Cool, I'd like to talk about them. I wish I could find them.


Mmm. And this female privilege is...? It's in any way comparable to male privilege in what ways?


You listed some of it.
Women have an advantage in some jobs, almost always lesser jobs. This is bad for men and women. It's bad for men who would rather be nurses than doctors, but it is worse for women who would rather be doctors. From what I have seen (yes, anecdotal), MRAs take an approach, similar to earlier feminism, of focusing on the individual grievances, rather than the source, which is the differential gender role. The source of any legal discrimination against fathers, if it exists, is the roles that say women must be the caregivers. Attacking the individual legal issues has the curious advantage of fighting for men's rights while still preserving the privilege.

I think causing disruptions, wasting police time


causing disruption like blocking streets with big crowds of people waving signs and wasting police time as the police have to put staff on to deal with the protest.
T Here's quite a difference between a planned, scheduled protest with permission and an unplanned, unscheduled dangerous stunt.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Azrael » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:45 pm UTC

sigsfried wrote:Therefore using your logic all sex is wrong because of the risk of lack of consent. It also leaves no room for people to change there mind, say things they don't mean in the heat of the moment or anything else. To ignore body language in these areas is dangerous and could well leave us in a situation that is even worse.

To return to the scenario I used earlier, if my partner says in the morning "not today" and later seduces me do I have to follow the original "not today" even though it is clear that it is now something she wants? Clearly this is a root we do not want to go down.

In the 8 scenarios now laid out, one quarter of them lead to a woman being raped. In absolutely no way can "not getting the sex you want" outweigh rape. If there is a risk (and you are incorrect that there is always a risk) you shouldn't have sex. Because the risk is choosing between not getting sex today, and raping someone. Pretty minor vs big fucking problem.

Nor is anyone saying you can't change your mind. Your real world scenario there is entirely unambiguous -- it's actually the perfect example of explicit consent. Both people want sex; both people are acting and saying they want sex. Also, as a fundamental of your situation, both parties are in a committed relationship. This significantly reduces the risk of both verbal and non-verbal communication errors. Depending on the relationship it may reduce the risk of miscues to effectively zero. But that is not true of all sexual encounters.

Speaking of which, yes, ignoring body language is dangerous. But so is ignoring spoken language. In fact, ignoring spoken language is significantly *more* dangerous as body language is frequently both misinterpreted and misapplied (e.g. wearing a revealing clothing is not body language). This is why people emphasize direct, spoken consent as the major factor in reducing the risk of sexual assault.


Also why on earth should someone get shot for climbing those buildings?

I'm not exactly an expert on the situational security of Buckingham Palace, but if you scale the White House fence and make a dash across the lawn, the chances that you're going to get shot are extremely high. Higher still if you ignore the officers telling you to stop and get down.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Azrael » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:47 pm UTC

Hobo: Two posts deleted.

Behave like an adult or GTFO.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:51 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:In the 8 scenarios now laid out, one quarter of them lead to a woman being raped. In absolutely no way can "not getting the sex you want" outweigh rape. If there is a risk (and you are incorrect that there is always a risk) you shouldn't have sex.
Just to clarify: There is always a risk. But that risk is not always significant.

And insignificant risks are, well--insignificant.

(I note this because if there was genuinely no risk, then it would be impossible to rape someone when both parties explicitly say "yes". It is still possible. But it is so unlikely that worrying about it is like worrying about being struck by lightning immediately after winning a lottery you didn't even play.)

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Dec 05, 2012 4:59 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:I'm not exactly an expert on the situational security of Buckingham Palace, but if you scale the White House fence and make a dash across the lawn, the chances that you're going to get shot are extremely high. Higher still if you ignore the officers telling you to stop and get down.


They're not so quick to shoot in the UK.
especially if the person in question is batman.
I mean who wants to be the cop who shot batman?

anyway, all that tells you is that their children are so important to them that they're willing to risk their lives. Oh me yarm might want to dismiss them but being willing to risk your life for your kids doesn't say "bad parent" to me.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Azrael » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:00 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:(I note this because if there was genuinely no risk, then it would be impossible to rape someone when both parties explicitly say "yes". It is still possible. But it is so unlikely that worrying about it is like worrying about being struck by lightning immediately after winning a lottery you didn't even play.)

Fair enough. The edge case of both positive body language and positive verbal communication contrary to actual preference (for instance, the result of an uninvolved party's coercion) is of such a insignificant probability that trying to define behavior guidelines for it is silly.

HungryHobo wrote:anyway, all that tells you is that their children are so important to them that they're willing to risk their lives. Gee Willikers might want to dismiss them but being willing to risk your life for your kids doesn't say "bad parent" to me.

Armed robbery to pay medical bills would also indicate that they are willing to risk their lives for their children. But that doesn't mean the police shouldn't respond in their typical fashion to the threat.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:04 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:anyway, all that tells you is that their children are so important to them that they're willing to risk their lives. Gee Willikers might want to dismiss them but being willing to risk your life for your kids doesn't say "bad parent" to me.
Er... maybe it should?

How is putting your life at risk for a cause not a sign of a bad parent? Which child do you think is better off: The one who has a parent who is alive and well, or the one who has a parent who died for a cause?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:05 pm UTC

There's also the scenarios where a woman says yes but really means no; some people might have sex out of 'duty' rather than any desire. Then there are cases where the man doesn't want sex. Real life is complicated, no?

I take issue with the feminist movement for not actively going out and acting equal. How many feminists proposed to their boyfriends or asked a guy out on a date?
Last edited by CorruptUser on Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:09 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Azrael » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:06 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:... or the one who has a parent who died for a cause?

Well, "died for a cause" has a spectrum.

Dying in a war to unseat a tyrant
vs.
Dying because you did not think through the consequences of scaling the Monarch's living quarters

The latter certainly indicates a failure to weigh risk vs reward. Which could be a characteristic of a bad parent, but certainly isn't a characteristic that alone makes a bad parent.

CorruptUser wrote:There's also the scenarios where a woman says yes but really means no; some people might have sex out of 'duty' rather than any desire. Then there are cases where the man doesn't want sex. Real life is complicated, no?

It is. Which is why some of us really don't understand what's so hard about asking, and making sure the answer is affirmative and in line with other indicators.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Belial » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:10 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
HungryHobo wrote:anyway, all that tells you is that their children are so important to them that they're willing to risk their lives. Gee Willikers might want to dismiss them but being willing to risk your life for your kids doesn't say "bad parent" to me.
Er... maybe it should?

How is putting your life at risk for a cause not a sign of a bad parent? Which child do you think is better off: The one who has a parent who is alive and well, or the one who has a parent who died for a cause?


Especially when the cause is really stupid and based on a gross misapprehension of reality (hint: custody hearings are not actually biased against men)
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:12 pm UTC

Your hypothetical sounds bad, but fortunately, society has created a workaround designed to be 100% effective in issues of communication where one party might be misreading the other party, and this radical technique of finding something out about what another person wants is called a question. You might try "Are you sure you want to have sex? Earlier today you said you didn't." Perhaps you might try "Oh yeah, are you ready for some o' my world-famous lovin'?" If you're overly formal and your relationship is weird, you could even go with "can I take this body language as a sign of consent for us to have sex?"


Right and that is of course something I do, but it isn't something that needs to be done. For example I wouldn't consider my partner saying no, something I need to remember so that the next time she is interested I can check if it still applies.

I'm not exactly an expert on the situational security of Buckingham Palace, but if you scale the White House fence and make a dash across the lawn, the chances that you're going to get shot are extremely high.


At no point was there an armed, military or police, response. So clearly it is the view of the not exactly very enlightened British Establishment that there was no reason to shoot them.

If there is a risk (and you are incorrect that there is always a risk) you shouldn't have sex. Because the risk is choosing between not getting sex today, and raping someone. Pretty minor vs big fucking problem.


How can you say there is ever no risk. The risk might be slight, but for all I know my partner might be sleep walking and therefore unable to consent (she can be very convincing that she is awake when she is asleep, and I have to try to catch her out by for example asking her to repeat something) she might have been drugged. If it was sex outside a long term relationship then there are all sorts of other things that can happen that could make the risk higher, someone could have for example had a drug spiked, or drunk more than I realised or be being blackmailed. The risk may be small but the risk exists to be able to say you ever certainly know somebody else's state of mind is arrogant.

When I was single I can remember inviting people back for coffee who said "yes, but only coffee" (or words to that effect) and within seconds of getting into my apartment where acting in a way, shall we say not conductive to getting coffee, do I really need to stop them and say you said something different half an hour ago? People do not say what they mean a lot of the time. This might not be a situation we like, but to ignore the reality is daft. Such an interruption would be perceived both most as weird.

Speaking of which, yes, ignoring body language is dangerous. But so is ignoring spoken language. In fact, ignoring spoken language is significantly *more* dangerous as body language is frequently both misinterpreted and misapplied (e.g. wearing a revealing clothing is not body language). This is why people emphasize direct, spoken consent as the major factor in reducing the risk of sexual assault.


But I am not saying that spoken language should be ignored, but that there are cases where actions especially, and to a lesser extent clear body language and absence of some actions, overrule spoken language. So if someone is actively trying to take off my clothes, I do not need to check that they do actually want to take off my clothes.

In the 8 scenarios now laid out, one quarter of them lead to a woman being raped. In absolutely no way can "not getting the sex you want" outweigh rape.


Right so if a woman says no or if she says yes having sex is wrong? That clearly isn't what anyone believes.

To be clear my position is basically that enthusiastic actions can overrule what someone says. Not that ignoring what people say in general is acceptable. If you convince me that this is false then I am a rapist and I will go and report myself to the police. That is not to say I cannot be convinced but I really don't think I have done anything so severe, and I doubt the police would take me seriously.

Especially when the cause is really stupid and based on a gross misapprehension of reality (hint: custody hearings are not actually biased against men)


Women are overwhelmingly more likely to end up with custody (in the UK more than 90%) and more likely to be allowed to ignore visitation rights (the later is actually the main one fathers 4 justice object to). Now neither case is proof that there is bias against men, but it is suggestive.
Last edited by sigsfried on Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:20 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Azrael » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:16 pm UTC

sigsfried wrote:Right so if a woman says no or if she says yes having sex is wrong? That clearly isn't what anyone believes.

To be clear my position is basically that enthusiastic actions can overrule what someone says. Not that ignoring what people say in general is acceptable. If you convince me that this is false then I am a rapist and I will go and report myself to the police. That is not to say I cannot be convinced but I really don't think I have done anything so severe, and I doubt the police would take me seriously.

No one is suggesting you're a rapist. Stop throwing around loaded, utterly bullshit assertions and maybe we can make some headway here?

Once again, no one is arguing that sex that is known to be consensual is rape just because one party was saying "no". The problem is when "no" is being said, determining if the sex is consensual is more difficult. So let me spell it out for you: If the other party says "no" the only way that you can know they don't mean it is if you enter the encounter with prior knowledge. That prior knowledge could be having set up a safe word. Or knowing from previous encounters that your partner always yells no while [fill in the blank]. Either way, you have prior knowledge that the sex is entirely consensual despite the negative verbal response.

The default is "no means no". If you have made exceptions, great. But those exceptions cannot be assumed and extrapolated across anything except the specific circumstance they were developed under.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:21 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:... or the one who has a parent who died for a cause?

Well, "died for a cause" has a spectrum.

Dying in a war to unseat a tyrant
vs.
Dying because you did not think through the consequences of scaling the Monarch's living quarters
Fair, but we wouldn't dispute that (in the absence of any other factors) a child with a dead parent is worse off than a child with a living parent. Maybe getting killed over a cause doesn't make you a bad parent, but if you are in a cause only for the sake of your children--and that cause puts your life at risk--part of your calculation should be 'Is getting killed here worth the benefit to my children?'.

And while the answer may be true in some extreme cases, it's not going to be true in cases like this (seriously? getting shot climbing a building? do you really think your children are going to be better off if this happens to you?). And if you think it is true in cases like this, I think that's a sign that you're probably not a very good parent. Because you're putting the cause of your children ahead of your actual children.

Which is frigging deranged.
sigsfried wrote:How can you say there is ever no risk. The risk might be slight, but for all I know my partner might be sleep walking and therefore unable to consent (she can be very convincing that she is awake when she is asleep, and I have to try to catch her out by for example asking her to repeat something) she might have been drugged. If it was sex outside a long term relationship then there are all sorts of other things that can happen that could make the risk higher, someone could have for example had a drug spiked, or drunk more than I realised or be being blackmailed. The risk may be small but the risk exists to be able to say you ever certainly know somebody else's state of mind is arrogant.

When I was single I can remember inviting people back for coffee who said "yes, but only coffee" (or words to that effect) and within seconds of getting into my apartment where acting in a way, shall we say not conductive to getting coffee, do I really need to stop them and say you said something different half an hour ago? People do not say what they mean a lot of the time. This might not be a situation we like, but to ignore the reality is daft. Such an interruption would be perceived both most as weird.
There is a simple solution to this: Pay attention to context and understand what is and is not relevant.

If someone says "yes, but only coffee" and the moment you are alone with them they are behaving like your face is on fire and their tongue is a hose, then obviously, 'yes, but only coffee' is no longer relevant. 'yes, but only coffee' is in the past; pay attention to what is going on now!

That being said, 'no' should always be treated as 'no', and when you are unsure, you should always seek clarification. Yes, there is always risk, but there are ways to make that risk so small that it becomes insignificant--and there is an obligation on all our parts to make sure that risk is insignificant. Know what is relevant and what is not relevant--and always move in the direction of more clarity. When you are unsure what your current partner wants, seek to discover what they want.

The key is always more clarity, more knowledge, more understanding. Interruptions are not fun--but they are better than the alternative. When things are clear, that is good; when things are not clear, make them clear. There are no acceptable excuses for why you should not endeavor to clarify your partner's wants. 'Because I don't want to spoil the mood' is just an excuse. If you're unsure, then spoil the fucking mood.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby omgryebread » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:28 pm UTC

No one is saying that actions cannot provide consent, nor that actions cannot provide in contrast to words.

We are saying that these situations are incredibly overblown by some people, and that a lot of what they take as non-verbal consent is not, including examples provided on the pages, provided by the OP, of the book written by the guy whose lecture sparked the protest which this thread is about.

Man, that's a hellishly convoluted sentence I just wrote.

The Great Hippo wrote:If someone says "yes, but only coffee" and the moment you are alone with them they are behaving like your face is on fire and their tongue is a hose, then obviously, 'yes, but only coffee' is no longer relevant. 'yes, but only coffee' is in the past; pay attention to what is going on now!
TGH says it really well here, and it stands in marked contrast to the pages from the OP, in which a woman saying "that's far enough" while engaging in a kiss is taken as consent to go further.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:32 pm UTC

I slept with someone who had said no, because there actions implied enthuastic consent. If however I was wrong to ignore earlier verbal statements then what I did was rape. I might not know for certain, she may have changed her mind, but as I no longer have any way to contact her surely the safe thing is to assume that it was rape, not assume I was good. After all the evidence from the rest of my life is that I am not a particularly moral person.

Yes, there is always risk, but there are ways to make that risk so small that it becomes insignificant


Define insignificant. One in a million means there are still going to be a lot of times rape occurs in the world, even if the one in a million cases were the only cases of rape. I mean even assuming everyone has sex twice in their life, you are looking at nearly 7,000 cases.


If someone says "yes, but only coffee" and the moment you are alone with them they are behaving like your face is on fire and their tongue is a hose, then obviously, 'yes, but only coffee' is no longer relevant. 'yes, but only coffee' is in the past; pay attention to what is going on now!


Then I think we agree.

TGH says it really well here, and it stands in marked contrast to the pages from the OP, in which a woman saying "that's far enough" while engaging in a kiss is taken as consent to go further.

Certainly that is true

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby Belial » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:34 pm UTC

Hawknissable made a good point that we're kindof overlooking here. Arguing over the finer points of consent is kindof missing the fact that the guy we're talking about seems to seriously believe that Father/Daughter incest is tragically underrated by society and can actually be pretty swell.

No matter what y'all hammer out vis-a-vis verbal versus nonverbal consent, you're not going to find legitimacy for this guy. He's uhh...pretty repugnant, and protesting his guest-speaker status was basically the right call. (This is known as returning to the topic)
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: Feminists protested MRA who spoke at U of Toronto

Postby sigsfried » Wed Dec 05, 2012 5:37 pm UTC

And while the answer may be true in some extreme cases, it's not going to be true in cases like this (seriously? getting shot climbing a building? do you really think your children are going to be better off if this happens to you?). And if you think it is true in cases like this, I think that's a sign that you're probably not a very good parent. Because you're putting the cause of your children ahead of your actual children.



I'm sorry but the risk of them getting shot was insignificant. But don't take my word for it, look at the way the police and military responded to the situation. Nobody armed came close to them.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests