Existence of the Patriarchy

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

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
vers
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby vers » Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:50 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote: A woman can't truly be just someone. The narrative is always about how she's a businesswoman, a mother, a wife, etc. There's never integration of nontraditional tasks with female identity. The female identity is split.

For barbie it's even worse, she's everything! and all at once!

Philwelch wrote:If I can't make assumptions that aren't 99% true, than I can't get up in the morning. Because, even though I observe that there is a floor next to me, I cannot assume that it will not collapse as soon as I apply the slightest weight to it. Even though I observe that there are stairs leading from my floor downwards, I cannot assume those stairs will not collapse, either. Even though I observe a clear fluid coming out of my shower head, I cannot assume that fluid is water, and not, for instance, hydrochloric acid.


Thats a good point, but that has to do more with things a bit less complex than human personality (although many have argued against logic itself for being unable to define why, exactly, we should think anything should hold true from one moment to the next. And even if it does, there is no reason to expect it to again, since we have not observed the next moment in time for ourselves. This is what you'd have a problem with mostly i would guess.)

I do think it would be wonderful if we didn't make these generalizations about gender, because i see no reason we must. The primary necessity of separating what is male from female is a genetic interest in procreation, but such an interest needs not be segmented in such a way, especially in the direction society is moving. Babies can be born of almost any relationship (some needing a surrogate mother, at least). We don't need to be attracted to someone more because they are the opposite 'sex,' because we have the capacity to be attracted to anyone at all. If someone is attractive to us, if we truly have no control over the process, then they will have a set of characteristics that you will be looking for, but these characteristics are less unique to a sex than to that type of person you are generally attracted to.

i think its entirely possible to do away with generalization with regards to sex, gender, and race. Perhaps im just too optimistic, because no one seems to agree :oops:. I've got at least a few 'feminist' thinkers to back me up though, so i'm not entirely dejected.

Philwelch wrote:And yet, if I'm working on a crime scene, pick up a pair of bloody gloves used by the murderer, and find blood with XY chromosomes mixed with a separate DNA that we've already matched to the victim, it's going to save me a lot of time to narrow my search to male suspects.

Well, that's absolutely true :) , but forensic teams and policing forces make extreme generalizations on purpose. They say "5'4" white female" because they want to lump as many similar people together as possible on their first inspection in order to whittle down their suspects from there. In your example, the police shouldn't be surprised if the person they find isn't exactly who they thought they would be. That's what they expect, to get more suspects than they need. They should not, off hand, expect their final suspect to be anything at all like what they were searching for

In everyday life, we have no need to make such crass over-generalization (The police do it at their own risk: this generalization often gets them in trouble for racial profiling, a form of bigotry very similar to the one we're discussing here). Making a search requires generalization, and its usually safe because you are essentially making your best guess as to all of a persons qualities only in order to find them.

Generalization is used, however, in interpersonal interaction more than anything, and this is the environment which breeds bigotry. When its used, it often takes the context of the opposite of a search. One sees an individual and associated them to the notions one has about a group that may be vaguely similar to them. Instead of having many and extracting one, they have one, and extract the personality of many. The personality of many does not exist, however. Therefore, we must cease such generalization, because it is stereotype.

Simplified(because i like stupid analogies): Methodology must be used to find a needle in a haystack, but one can't look at that needle and say that it was obviously found among other needles.

So, one makes generalizations to make a search in expectation of shedding their preconceived notions as time goes on. Such is a noble search for you do not nurture your generalizations, you expect them to eventually be disproved in some manner or another, because the necessarily must be.
You never need, however, to look at an individual and assume many. This would be calling upon generalizations you've nurtured in the past and expecting them to be constant. And many times, such generalizations include "Blonde: dumb, Woman: overly emotional, too weak, Black: criminal, Hispanic: Illegal," those common stereotypes which lead to normalized hatred.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Rinsaikeru » Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:57 pm UTC

But in the movie trope where the dad is a businessman a la cat's in the cradle--what's mom doing? She's already the nurturer and provider (or she's out of the picture due to divorce or death etc).

Usually in this trope, the businessman also has peers at work who point out he's sacrificing his career and promotion. This is the fairytale aspect to the story, imagine a dad being able to buck the tradition of workaholic absent from homelife father. I'm not saying that there aren't cases where dads are available and willing to be with their children--I'm saying that the movie trope you mention is problematized by the underlying expectations that this dad is going against the norm.

He's not a jerk in a climate of dads at work who'd rather be at home. He's a businessman who goes against the stream and puts his kids first (in these movies).
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Gunfingers » Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:08 pm UTC

In "Liar Liar" mom had custody. And a job. It's the only movie i can think of off the top of my head that had the "Dad works too much" gimmick, which is why i keep going back to it. I'm only aware of the gimmick at all because as a kid i wanted my dad to be around more often and watched movies that appealed to that in me.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Rinsaikeru » Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:29 pm UTC

Well you demonstrate why that trope is there I think. Too often men are compelled to spend lots of time at work--homelife is less available as an excuse than it is to women. It's sort of a double edged sword.

Women who are mothers are prevented from getting ahead in some ways because it is expected and forgiven when they take time to be with their children.

Men are prevented from spending time at home because they are not given the same level of flexibility because they are expected to put in the time at work.

Not true in all cases, but enough of a hurdle socially that I feel it's certainly relevant to family dynamics.
Rice Puddin.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Philwelch » Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:45 pm UTC

vers wrote:
Philwelch wrote:If I can't make assumptions that aren't 99% true, than I can't get up in the morning. Because, even though I observe that there is a floor next to me, I cannot assume that it will not collapse as soon as I apply the slightest weight to it. Even though I observe that there are stairs leading from my floor downwards, I cannot assume those stairs will not collapse, either. Even though I observe a clear fluid coming out of my shower head, I cannot assume that fluid is water, and not, for instance, hydrochloric acid.


Thats a good point, but that has to do more with things a bit less complex than human personality


The more complex something is, the more you need abstraction to make sense of it at all.

vers wrote:I do think it would be wonderful if we didn't make these generalizations about gender, because i see no reason we must. The primary necessity of separating what is male from female is a genetic interest in procreation, but such an interest needs not be segmented in such a way, especially in the direction society is moving. Babies can be born of almost any relationship (some needing a surrogate mother, at least). We don't need to be attracted to someone more because they are the opposite 'sex,' because we have the capacity to be attracted to anyone at all. If someone is attractive to us, if we truly have no control over the process, then they will have a set of characteristics that you will be looking for, but these characteristics are less unique to a sex than to that type of person you are generally attracted to.


OK, here's a few issues:

Let's take a brief moment to point out the places where we separate male from female in the ways that are somewhat amenable to integration—restrooms, sports, clothing, the military, draft registration, marriage laws, college housing assignment, and so forth. Some of these (marriage laws) could easily do with removing any kind of gender specificity, while others (the military, draft registration, sports) would just take another generation or two of culture change to get there. Others are more difficult. Many women would be uncomfortable sharing dorm rooms, dorm showers, and restrooms with men. Clothing *could* be made unisex, but existing styles of clothing, styles which are designed to better fit the typical body shapes of either sex, may still be valuable. In fact, I think a lot would be lost if we tried to build an androgynous society.

But setting aside the *easy* things, there are still places where it's absolutely necessary to distinguish. If people want to have children, the method of reproduction is going to change based upon their sex, even if we have fantastic scientific methods. The mental model we have is still going to be the simplest—a man and a woman can reproduce through ordinary intercourse, otherwise, you have to introduce sperm (sperm bank) or eggs (surrogate mother) from an outside donor (or use fantastic scientific methods).

And what's the gain? Human beings and our ancestors have lived in a sexed society since before we were apes. Setting aside transhumanist ideas about eliminating biological reproduction or uploading into android bodies, we're not going to overcome sex.

Furthermore, trying to ignore sex (be gender-blind, by analogy to color-blind) also eliminates our ability to see sexism.

vers wrote:So, one makes generalizations to make a search in expectation of shedding their preconceived notions as time goes on. Such is a noble search for you do not nurture your generalizations, you expect them to eventually be disproved in some manner or another, because the necessarily must be.
You never need, however, to look at an individual and assume many. This would be calling upon generalizations you've nurtured in the past and expecting them to be constant. And many times, such generalizations include "Blonde: dumb, Woman: overly emotional, too weak, Black: criminal, Hispanic: Illegal," those common stereotypes which lead to normalized hatred.


And I don't think anyone's in favor of stereotyping. But you propose a gender-blind society, and that cure is worse than the disease.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Rinsaikeru » Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:52 pm UTC

Vers
I don't want to be non-gendered, I would prefer if being whichever possible gender is most true to you did not impact your access to employment, housing, promotions, child-care and child benefits and did not hinder day to day life.
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:00 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:Vers
I don't want to be non-gendered, I would prefer if being whichever possible gender is most true to you did not impact your access to employment, housing, promotions, child-care and child benefits and did not hinder day to day life.


I can accept there are gender differences on all of those, with the possible exception of housing. Were you referring to gays not being allowed in certain communities or were you talking about females? If it was females, do you believe a women be denied housing based on gender?

Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Rinsaikeru » Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:03 pm UTC

It isn't that she's homeless for being a woman--it's that there are factors impacting her ability to earn with the same power as a man in the same position and therefore her capacity to own property is diminished. This isn't the only factor, but it is one of them. And yes I was also refering to community pressures regarding who can or cannot inhabit certain communities.
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
vers
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby vers » Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:29 pm UTC

i simply feel that as long as there is such a stark separation made, then we won't have true equality. As if separate but equal were less a legal standpoint and more a universal truth.
if the current paradigm holds, though, i hope im wrong in thinking that. I hope, then, that we can remain seperate and still be somehow the same.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Philwelch » Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:34 pm UTC

In any case, we have to work with what's possible. Maybe it's impossible for men and women to be equal in a gendered society, but I'm even more certain that it's impossible to have a non-gendered human society. We take what we're given and do the best we can with it.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

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

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:27 am UTC

To Vers' point, in the article "In Defence of 'Patriarchy'"--which was written in response to Sheila Rowbotham's "The Trouble With 'Patriarchy'"--, the authors come to the conclusion that "the concept of patriarchy points to a strategy which will eliminate not men, but masculinity, and transform the whole web of psycho-social relations in which masculinity and femininity are formed." So, they agree that there is a patriarchy and the way to overcome it is to eliminate gender (not that they actually say femininity should be abolished as well, but we can probably infer that). However, here is their working:
...one of the most important breakthroughs in feminist theory occurred when women began to question this commonsense definition of sex, pushing past all the odd assumptions about 'natural' womanhood and manhood to examine how deep the roots of women's oppression really lay. What was needed then, was a theory of gender itself, a new way of thinking about reproduction and sexuality. The search drew some of us towards structural anthropology and and psychoanalysis. From a feminist reading of anthropology we learned that the social meaning of maleness and femaleness is constructed through kinship rules which prescribe patterns of sexual dominance and subordination. From psychoanalysis we learned how these kinship rules become inscribed on the unconscious psyche of the female child via the traumatic re-orientation of sexual desire within the Oedipal phase away from the mother and towards the father ('the law of the father'). The two arguments combined, as in Juliet Mitchell's highly influential Psychoanalysis and Feminism, provide a powerful account of the 'generation of a patriarchal system that must by definition oppress women'.
I can agree with the anthropology, but I find the psychoanalysis dubious, because it seems like a complex trick to keep pulling off consistently amongst families and back through time. In any event, this is part of my problem with the term 'patriarchy', because the solutions being proposed by academics are never that attractive (i.e. eliminate gender).

Regarding narratives... the businessman/dad goes against all the other businessmen by wanting to become more involved with his family because this is how narrative functions...through conflict. A woman who wants to become a nudist isn't compelling narrative if she already lives in a nudist colony. We can't read too much into how 'normal' people are portrayed in film.
*article taken from Raphael Samuel, People's History and Socialist Theory, from the section "Sexual Politics."
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

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Philwelch » Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:57 am UTC

Psychoanalysis violates all good scientific methodology and consequently arrives at highly suspect conclusions in the end. As a consequence, it's only taken seriously by those of such ideological bents that they are either ignorant of or contemptuous towards good science (and often both).

Of course, this is all reflective of an ideological, rather than pragmatic, approach to feminism. So for reasons I'll flesh out later (and possibly elsewhere), this kind of thinking is nearly all mistaken and in any case does next to nothing to improve the plight of real women in the real world.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Spambot5546 » Thu Dec 25, 2014 11:27 pm UTC

I know this thread has been dead for longer than the subject of the story I'm about to tell has been alive, but I had an experience that I feel fit in here really well. Many years ago, before my first account was banned, I asked the following question in this very thread.

Gunfingers wrote:Not being a girl, i never get to experience this social training. Who/what is training women to not want to do math and science, and to what end? I'm not trying to harrangue you, i'm just having a hard time imagining what form it might take. I'm picturing a camp, somewhat similar to the "ladyness training" montage in "A League of their Own", but that's mostly because it makes me giggle a bit (a lady reveals nothing!).


I cringe a bit because I remember how snidely sarcastic I thought I was being and how I didn't think Hammer would have an actual answer.

If I doubted her answer I certainly don't after today. Today I saw my niece open her Christmas presents. Seeing all the barbies and princesses and kitchen sets. Damn. We might as well be hanging a banner that says "shoot no higher than being a wife and mother."
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby PAstrychef » Fri Dec 26, 2014 12:29 am UTC

So now you know enough to get her different presents, and to encourage her to go far beyond those roles.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Spambot5546 » Fri Dec 26, 2014 1:03 am UTC

I knew that before today. I got her legos. I just can't help but worry if it's not too little too late.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby addams » Fri Dec 26, 2014 1:44 am UTC

Kyriarchy.
Kyriarchy?

I don't want to learn a new word.
It seems I did, anyway.

With the word Patriarchy, at least, we have a word a lot of us are familiar with.
We can choose to argue about the meaning of the word.

We can choose to discuss the advancements the Human Animal has made in living in groups.
We can choose to wail and complain about the snail's pace of our progress.

We can choose to work together to end the dehumanizing effects of Unfair Advantage.
If we have to spend a lot of time learning a new word, it takes away from our time doing other stuff.

Patriarchy used in its classic way does not describe the current and entire set of problems.
The word Patriarchy does allow conversations to get off the ground.

Some conversations that use that word are shot on sight.

Confession of a Bad Feminist:
Spoiler:
There must be a thread around somewhere for this sort of thing.
Up in this thread it was mentioned that woman contribute to the Oppression.

It's true.
We do.

I heard and saw the Most God Awlful speech and behavior from a man I had hired to work for me.
I was paying that AssHole and I did not stand up to him.

I was intimidated.
That's a fucking excuse.

That woman needed and wanted my support and I let her down.
Some women do worse than that. I know it to be true.


The courage and support to stand up for ourselves and each other is the best thing about any and all feminist conversations.
Yes. Some of the literature gets a little High Minded and hard to follow. Not for Social Scientists and Gender Studies Majors.
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.

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

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Azrael » Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:30 am UTC

I fully support the idea of a patriarchy. Without it, I wouldn't be able to enjoy this feminist magazine I read regularly. I love reading the articles of these sexy feminists talk about nothing.


And you're banned.

EDIT: Oh, and your editing rights too. But nice try.

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

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Azrael » Fri Jan 09, 2015 12:31 am UTC

No really, you are. I just wasn't quick enough in the other tab. Or you were too quick. Either one.

PM me if you really don't get why.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:05 pm UTC

To the "but biology"/"what about the optimal society!" objections:

The perfect, most egalitarian/equal society is one in which, at the very least, no one is advantaged or disadvantaged by the circumstances of their identity, but only by the outcomes of their consentually-taken actions.

Discriminating against someone based on their biology is something we should seek to eliminate, and fortunately, we're not in pre-toolmaking times anymore. In fact, by the time we get even close to biology being the main remaining source of sexism, we'll probably have technology advanced enough that you change from a male body to a female body on a whim, over tea, much less be able to easily accomodate it with the right equipment.

It simply isn't a relevant objection, because even if it's a factor in causing sexism, it's not a primary factor, and won't be a primary factor until it's no longer an obstacle anyway.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby mathmannix » Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:40 pm UTC

Spambot5546 wrote:If I doubted her answer I certainly don't after today. Today I saw my niece open her Christmas presents. Seeing all the barbies and princesses and kitchen sets. Damn. We might as well be hanging a banner that says "shoot no higher than being a wife and mother."

For Christmas, my wife and I got our one-year-old daughter (among other things) several Lego (Duplo, actually) sets, and also food for her kitchen set and two dolls (Cabbage Patch Kids are back, apparently!) I can't help but feel a twinge of offense at your comment... part of me wants to say "you can shoot no higher than to be a wife or mother." As in, it's not possible, not it's not allowed. A lot of great people in history got where they were because of their great mothers, and would be the first to say so. (George Washington comes to mind.)

My daughter is already showing signs of being quite smart, and she might be an engineer or computer programmer, but she might also choose to be a stay-at-home mom someday, like my very smart mom and sister. If it's not presented as the only option, there's nothing wrong with choosing to raise a family and be supportive. If that's what she wants, what she chooses. No, I'll never tell my daughter she can't do anything. I'll tell her she can be anything she wants to be... President, first person on Mars (if it even happens by then!), a doctor, a famous musician ... or a mommy like her grandmother (who was a music teacher both before and after the 18 years spent raising me and my sister) and her aunt (who was a banker, with the prospect to make more than I ever will as a statistician, before she became a Pastor's Wife and stay-at-home mom.) I'll be proud of her whatever she chooses.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

mousewiz
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:50 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby mousewiz » Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:56 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
Spambot5546 wrote:If I doubted her answer I certainly don't after today. Today I saw my niece open her Christmas presents. Seeing all the barbies and princesses and kitchen sets. Damn. We might as well be hanging a banner that says "shoot no higher than being a wife and mother."

For Christmas, my wife and I got our one-year-old daughter (among other things) several Lego (Duplo, actually) sets, and also food for her kitchen set and two dolls (Cabbage Patch Kids are back, apparently!) I can't help but feel a twinge of offense at your comment... part of me wants to say "you can shoot no higher than to be a wife or mother." As in, it's not possible, not it's not allowed. A lot of great people in history got where they were because of their great mothers, and would be the first to say so. (George Washington comes to mind.)

My daughter is already showing signs of being quite smart, and she might be an engineer or computer programmer, but she might also choose to be a stay-at-home mom someday, like my very smart mom and sister. If it's not presented as the only option, there's nothing wrong with choosing to raise a family and be supportive. If that's what she wants, what she chooses. No, I'll never tell my daughter she can't do anything. I'll tell her she can be anything she wants to be... President, first person on Mars (if it even happens by then!), a doctor, a famous musician ... or a mommy like her grandmother (who was a music teacher both before and after the 18 years spent raising me and my sister) and her aunt (who was a banker, with the prospect to make more than I ever will as a statistician, before she became a Pastor's Wife and stay-at-home mom.) I'll be proud of her whatever she chooses.

This sounds reasonable. I believe the issue is whether or not you would say the same thing to your son, and whether or not your actions would say it as loudly.

Autolykos
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:32 am UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Autolykos » Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:55 pm UTC

I'm kinda surprised nobody quoted a recent post in Slate Star Codex yet (or I missed it; if that's the case, mea culpa), because it pretty much sums up 80-90% of the reason this debate got so long and heated without reaching a conclusion. Basically, the word "Patriarchy" has wildly different meanings when used by different people or in different contexts - and some people even intentionally exploit this to "win" debates. Thus, it makes only sense to ask the initial question for specific definitions of the word:
Patriarchy is yet another motte and bailey trick.
The motte is that patriarchy is the existence of different gender roles in our society and the ways in which they are treated differently.
The bailey is that patriarchy is men having power over women.
If you allow people to switch between these and their connotations willy-nilly, then you enable all sorts of mischief.
Whenever men complain about anything, you say “Oh, things are bad for men? Well, that sounds like a gender role. Patriarchy’s fault!”
And then the next day you say “Well, since we already agreed yesterday your problem is patriarchy, the solution is take away power from men and give it to women. It’s right there in the word, patri-archy. So what we need is more feminism.”
Even if in this particular case the feminism is making the problem worse.

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

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby HungryHobo » Thu Feb 12, 2015 6:04 pm UTC

I found the following paragraph to be the memorable bit

So, for example, we are told that the patriarchy causes male rape. We are told that if we want to fight male rape, the best way to do so is to work hard to promote feminist principles. But once feminism has been promoted, the particular feminists benefitting from that extra social capital may well be the ones to successfully lobbying national governments to keep male rape legal on the ground that if raping men was illegal, they might make false accusations which could hurt women.

If patriarchy is “any problem with gender roles”, it’s entirely possible, even predictable, that feminists can be the ones propping it up in any given situation.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
sevenperforce
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:01 am UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby sevenperforce » Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:45 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:I found the following paragraph to be the memorable bit

So, for example, we are told that the patriarchy causes male rape. We are told that if we want to fight male rape, the best way to do so is to work hard to promote feminist principles. But once feminism has been promoted, the particular feminists benefitting from that extra social capital may well be the ones to successfully lobbying national governments to keep male rape legal on the ground that if raping men was illegal, they might make false accusations which could hurt women.

If patriarchy is “any problem with gender roles”, it’s entirely possible, even predictable, that feminists can be the ones propping it up in any given situation.

There's a distinction between feminists and feminism. Not to pull a No True Scotsman, but people can most certainly call themselves feminists while doing the work of the patriarchy and calling it feminism. See, for example, TERFs.

I am sure there are occasional times when the pendulum legitimately swings too far, but that's pretty rare. More often you have a person doing what benefits them personally in a particular situation even though it reinforces patriarchal gender roles.

I know I'm coming in on the end of this, but I want to point out that there's a reason it's "patriarchy" (rule of fathers) rather than "andriarchy" (rule of men). Patriarchal gender roles go both ways; they dictate the specific place of women and of men. This has, historically, hurt more women than men, but it's not limited to what hurts women and helps men.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Feb 12, 2015 8:27 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:I found the following paragraph to be the memorable bit

So, for example, we are told that the patriarchy causes male rape. We are told that if we want to fight male rape, the best way to do so is to work hard to promote feminist principles. But once feminism has been promoted, the particular feminists benefitting from that extra social capital may well be the ones to successfully lobbying national governments to keep male rape legal on the ground that if raping men was illegal, they might make false accusations which could hurt women.

If patriarchy is “any problem with gender roles”, it’s entirely possible, even predictable, that feminists can be the ones propping it up in any given situation.

Or we could pull our heads out of our asses and actually look at what the law says:
According to the proposal, an amendment to the Penal Law, a woman who causes or makes it possible for a person to insert his (or her) bodily organ or an object into her sexual organ will be charged with rape, forbidden intercourse by consent, sodomy or sex offenses within the family, depending on the circumstances of the act.

The language of that law is hilariously bad -- it is "but judge, she was asking for it!" writ large.

The way it's written, women could be easily charged with rape if they admit that intercourse happened, even if any sane person could see that the man raped the woman. Like, if a man murdered the woman forcibly violating her, with a gun and everything, the worst kind of rape that even died-in-the-wool misogynists would be forced to admit is rape, even then this law would say that the woman could be charged.

So, no, hypochondriacs, this is NOT Feminism "using buzzwords to go too far and cause abuse", it's a quite reasonable objection to a terribly written law being misrepresented by disingenuous misogynists to drum up outrage.

Did the people complaining about this actually read the article at all, which very clearly details these concerns? Or did they read the sensationalist headline and immediately leap into their standard bigotry?

That this Scott guy claims to be a rationalist and yet so dishonestly and maliciously misrepresented the situation...kinda blows all my faith in anything he says out of the water, even before reading the rest of his write-up. And then when I do...holy shit that Slate Star Codex article is filled with doublethink, projection, and just not fucking getting the point of what they're talking about. What a moron. Even Aaranson realised what he was doing wrong once he engaged in conversation, i.e., a whole heaping helping of projection, assuming no one else goes through what he goes through, treating women as the "other", and basic entitlement, just like all the people pointing out the flaws in his original argument said.

...frankly, I'm a bit shocked that Scott's extraordinary claim would be repeated in this thread at face value without doing the barest minimum to confirm whether it was total horseshit or not.




Oooooor, in simpler words, because he was mistakenly operating under the exact same "feminism = anti-men" misapprehension that Epson VS230 projectors in this very thread are claiming is accurate. Sure, I'll be willing to admit that in debates, two different meanings of patriarchy or feminism are being used -- but here's the kicker, it's not by the same people, and as the Aaranson episode clearly showed us, the anti-men definition is used primarily by men who feel like feminism is an attack on their birthright privileges.
...
For a moment of self-introspection, which system benefits from portraying feminism as anti-men, and thus bigoted, and thus dismissable?


EDIT: Oh, plus that law assumes that only women rape men, so it does shit all to protect from man-on-man or woman-on-woman rape. Shit, fucking, all.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Derek » Thu Feb 12, 2015 10:19 pm UTC

Autolykos wrote:I'm kinda surprised nobody quoted a recent post in Slate Star Codex yet (or I missed it; if that's the case, mea culpa), because it pretty much sums up 80-90% of the reason this debate got so long and heated without reaching a conclusion. Basically, the word "Patriarchy" has wildly different meanings when used by different people or in different contexts - and some people even intentionally exploit this to "win" debates. Thus, it makes only sense to ask the initial question for specific definitions of the word:
Patriarchy is yet another motte and bailey trick.
The motte is that patriarchy is the existence of different gender roles in our society and the ways in which they are treated differently.
The bailey is that patriarchy is men having power over women.
If you allow people to switch between these and their connotations willy-nilly, then you enable all sorts of mischief.
Whenever men complain about anything, you say “Oh, things are bad for men? Well, that sounds like a gender role. Patriarchy’s fault!”
And then the next day you say “Well, since we already agreed yesterday your problem is patriarchy, the solution is take away power from men and give it to women. It’s right there in the word, patri-archy. So what we need is more feminism.”
Even if in this particular case the feminism is making the problem worse.

Yeah, it's a very common rhetorical trick. When I read this, I was quite glad to finally have a name for it. You definitely see it a lot in gender discussions, with "feminism = equality" but most feminists only ever work on women's issues, never men's.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:01 pm UTC

Derek wrote:Yeah, it's a very common rhetorical trick. When I read this, I was quite glad to finally have a name for it. You definitely see it a lot in gender discussions, with "feminism = equality" but most feminists only ever work on women's issues, never men's.

Let's assume your anecdotal evidence holds water (which given that it assumes you have the sum total view of each commentator's advocacy, is suspect):

There is a certain political reality to the situation: the most critical issues, that are the most likely to pass due to enough support, are the ones that are going to get solved first. Contrary to Scott's laughable claim, feminist groups aren't trying to impede the progress of men's rights initiatives -- at most, they point out when those initiatives come to a result that is poorly thought out and will make things worse for everyone, as with the Israeli law.

Secondly -- there's a finite amount of effort each person can put into things. It is absolutely rational and ethical for me to support equality, but only have the time to protect the rights of, for example, parents instead of beet-farmers in Chile. I'll certainly not act to further erode the beet-farmers' rights, and if I can help them without sacrificing crucial time toward protecting parents, I will, but it is utterly false to claim that I am no longer protecting equality simply because I spend the greater majority of my time supporting legislation to protect parents, and didn't have time to protest for beet-farmers in Chile.

So, assuming that they are lying about being for equality is an astonishingly irrational conclusion.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
sevenperforce
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:01 am UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby sevenperforce » Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:04 pm UTC

Derek wrote:You definitely see it a lot in gender discussions, with "feminism = equality" but most feminists only ever work on women's issues, never men's.

Most third wave feminists I've seen are quite vocal about recognizing the way patriarchy hurts men.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:28 pm UTC

sevenperforce wrote:
Derek wrote:You definitely see it a lot in gender discussions, with "feminism = equality" but most feminists only ever work on women's issues, never men's.

Most third wave feminists I've seen are quite vocal about recognizing the way patriarchy hurts men.


I notice an interesting difference in terminology. You are talking about "patriarchy". The title talks about "the Patriarchy". The first is describing a concept, and the second is used as if it was an entity.

Perhaps this discrepancy is the root cause for much conflict, and hostility towards the latter(because, really, it's hard to define what exactly is in that entity, if it is treated as such) is bleeding over to the former due to the similar terminology.

After all, "patriarchy" seems to boil down to merely "the way things are".

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby leady » Thu Feb 12, 2015 11:40 pm UTC

and back in good old blightly the patriarchy has just affirmed that in British law now has one stand out crime on its books that essentially reverses the standards for all other crimes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ppeal.html

it apparently sucks at its job

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:13 am UTC

leady wrote:and back in good old blightly the patriarchy has just affirmed that in British law now has one stand out crime on its books that essentially reverses the standards for all other crimes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ppeal.html

it apparently sucks at its job

Are you purposefully misunderstanding what is meant by "patriarchy" in relation to feminist theory?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
sevenperforce
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:01 am UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby sevenperforce » Fri Feb 13, 2015 5:06 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sevenperforce wrote:
Derek wrote:You definitely see it a lot in gender discussions, with "feminism = equality" but most feminists only ever work on women's issues, never men's.

Most third wave feminists I've seen are quite vocal about recognizing the way patriarchy hurts men.


I notice an interesting difference in terminology. You are talking about "patriarchy". The title talks about "the Patriarchy". The first is describing a concept, and the second is used as if it was an entity.

The former seems as much an entity as the latter; I don't think the lack of a definite article makes that much of a difference.

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

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Feb 13, 2015 12:25 pm UTC

The way it's written, women could be easily charged with rape if they admit that intercourse happened, even if any sane person could see that the man raped the woman. Like, if a man murdered the woman forcibly violating her, with a gun and everything, the worst kind of rape that even died-in-the-wool misogynists would be forced to admit is rape, even then this law would say that the woman could be charged.


Have you read it? actually read it? because the only thing you've quoted is the summary from the article. I'm having trouble finding the exact wording of the amendment. it's an amendment to the penal code so I'd be surprised if it doesn't mirror the existing rules for males: ie, something which says "causes or makes it possible for" so that a man can't just say "she was on top" (with a gun pointed at her) and get off scot free.

KrytenKoro wrote:The way it's written, women could be easily charged with rape if they admit that intercourse happened, even if any sane person could see that the man raped the woman. Like, if a man murdered the woman forcibly violating her, with a gun and everything, the worst kind of rape that even died-in-the-wool misogynists would be forced to admit is rape, even then this law would say that the woman could be charged.


Could. could in the same way that a male victim could be charged in countries where it's legally possible for men to be raped by women. Absolutely. it's then up to the courts to take into account things like whether there was consent and whether one party was being forced or was incapable of giving consent etc. Just like in countries with decent laws on the matter.

As it stands if a woman has sex with a man there without his consent, say she gets him drunk and ignores the No's, (has a gun and everything) she is literally legally not a rapist because she didn't insert anything into his body and if he tries to go to the police she can say he raped her.

yes they did indeed lay out the arguments, they didn't want the wording to be revised slightly, they simply held that [men are stronger] == [not rape] :

According to attorney Ruth Eldar of the Noga Center of the Ono Academic College, men will take advantage of the legislation to defend themselves against rape charges by accusing the women of raping them.

“The bill will cause women to stop complaining to police when they are raped by providing men with a formal alibi in court,” she warned. “The law treats men and women as being equal when it is obvious that in these matters, the men are the stronger ones.”

Eldar told The Jerusalem Post that women should be charged with rape only in cases where they encourage minors or helpless people to insert a bodily organ or object into their bodies.


ie: men are strong so they can only be rape victims if they're children or disabled.


You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.

You are exactly the sort of sickening, twisted parody of "feminism" he was talking about. On the bright side I now know to not associate any of your positions with those of real feminists.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
sevenperforce
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:01 am UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby sevenperforce » Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:58 pm UTC

The proposed law presents a complex issue. The original law was intended to expand statutory rape laws to cover acts perpetrated by women as well as acts perpetrated by men, as prior statute presumed statutory rape was a male-perpetrated offense.

I think we can all agree such a change is good. We need to recognize that when a boy has sex with an adult woman, that's not something to be laughed off or applauded; that's rape. All too often, we see cases where a female teacher and a male student are sleeping together and people (mostly men) are inclined to say "lucky kid" and act like it's no big deal. Such treatment is symptomatic of patriarchal gender roles which insist that "guys always want sex" and so a female teacher sleeping with her student "isn't really rape". It's an example of how the patriarchy simultaneously demeans women and demonizes men.

Expanding statutory rape laws to allow women to be charged is therefore feminist (because it opposes the patriarchy) and decidedly non-misandrist (because you end up protecting men).

However, this proposed change is dealing with statutory rape. This is a type of rape where consent is abrogated not by overt coercion, but by the inability of one participant to legitimately consent. So it would make absolutely no sense to try and amend this law to also address adult-woman-on-adult-male rape, because that is a fundamentally different type of crime.

The apparent insistence by the Justice Ministry that adult rape be shoehorned in makes absolutely no sense. While we should certainly recognize that coerced adult woman-on-man sex is a form of rape, this doesn't belong in a section on statutory rape. Statutory rape is a strict liability crime and so allowing a woman to be charged with statutory rape simply because she participated in sex with an adult male is nonsense.

I can absolutely see why women's groups would be alarmed by this, because it makes no sense and it seems like an attempt to mix things up unnecessarily. Expanding statutory rape to include "adult victims" would imply that a woman being raped can be cross-charged with the lesser crime of statutory rape simply because she participated under duress. That's exactly the kind of thing we need to avoid. "She took off her jeans, and that's 'making it possible', so she's as guilty as I am, judge!"

Of course the specific 'feminist' quote -- "The law treats men and women as being equal when it is obvious that in these matters, the men are the stronger ones" -- is unfortunate and doesn't really communicate the root issue very well. But that's beside the point.

tl/dr: Should coerced male-on-female adult intercourse be treated as rape? Yes. Is a section on statutory rape the place to do it? No.

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

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Feb 13, 2015 3:28 pm UTC

sevenperforce wrote:However, this proposed change is dealing with statutory rape. This is a type of rape where consent is abrogated not by overt coercion, but by the inability of one participant to legitimately consent. So it would make absolutely no sense to try and amend this law to also address adult-woman-on-adult-male rape, because that is a fundamentally different type of crime.


and so we move on to an assumption that men can't suffer reduced ability to consent: say by being too intoxicated to consent. So if you roofie a cute guy and mount with him when he doesn't know what's going on: don't worry, you're in the clear.

Also are you completely certain of those statements or are you guessing because the summary from the story says it covers rape, not just statutory rape.

again if you've got a link to the root documents I'd appreciate it.

will be charged with rape, forbidden intercourse by consent, sodomy or sex offenses within the family, depending on the circumstances of the act


And again, the objection put forward was that the law was treating men and women and equal and she thought that was absurd, not that it was criminalizing women more than men.
Last edited by HungryHobo on Fri Feb 13, 2015 3:34 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.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Feb 13, 2015 3:33 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:Could. could in the same way that a male victim could be charged in countries where it's legally possible for men to be raped by women. Absolutely. it's then up to the courts to take into account things like whether there was consent and whether one party was being forced or was incapable of giving consent etc. Just like in countries with decent laws on the matter.

...you're looking at a law that defines what we would recognize as being the victim as a crime, a law which does not protect men from other men, and saying that the courts can be trusted to rule according to their gut rather than the words of the law?

I cannot find the exact wording of the bill (the most I can confirm is that it was a Feb 23 2010 bill read before the Knesset proposing an amendment to the penal code), but all the articles commenting on the bill, both before it's proposal and on its rejection, describe it and the objections against it similarly. If this is not the correct version of the bill, then at the very least it's what Israel believes it is.

More importantly -- based on the sources you've found, do you have any rational reason to believe the women's groups want male rape to be legal? I may not have the exact text of the bill, but what evidence I do have, which appears to be all you and Scott have as well, indicate that the rejection of the bill was very reasonable. Are you privy to sources that I am not?

Regardless of the text of the law, Scott was blatantly lying about the reason the women's groups gave for objecting to the law, including the fact that they were objecting to the law, not to criminalizing male rape. He claimed they were saying that if raping males was criminalized, it would hurt women, when all sources agree they are clearly condemning the wording of this specific bill.

In any case, other sources I've found describe the current laws on rape as:
Article 345 of The Penal Law ‏(1977‏) defines rape as penetration of a female by a body part or object, without consent.

Correctly specifies consent.

In contrast to Canada, Australia, South Africa and Western European countries, Israel is the only country which in its laws specifies the gender of the victim of sexual assault.

Journalists are already pointing out that Israel's rape laws have a problem with specifying gender when it shouldn't be.

The Justice Ministry has pushed for “person,” but women’s organizations argue that the language proposed for “person” would allow adult male rapists to use the language that child victims can and claim that, “she made me do it.”

Argument has already been about the language of the bill allowing obvious rapists to claim they were the "real victim".

So, in the event that this law is simply mirroring prior language, that's prior language that people already have a problem with.

For more information, call the Rape Crisis Centers in Israel Hotlines − men: 1203; religious men: 02-532-8000; women: 1202; religious women: 02-673-0002; Arabic speakers: 04-656-6813. The Israel Association for Child Protection Hotline − 1800-223-966.
The National Council for the Child's Child Victim Assistance Program: 02-678-0606.

If you believe the law was misrepresented in that article or my description, here are the numbers to call. If I've been mistaken and the women's groups were all lying about their goals in every statement they have been recorded as making and just want to be able to get away with raping boys, I will happily apologize and join in condemning them.

As it stands if a woman has sex with a man there without his consent, say she gets him drunk and ignores the No's, (has a gun and everything) she is literally legally not a rapist because she didn't insert anything into his body and if he tries to go to the police she can say he raped her.

Incorrect, as the law against raping women specifies they must lack consent. Still, if, after the Emancipation Proclamation, the laws repealing the 3/5 compromise made African Americans legally count as fifty people, it would have been reasonable and probably the best course to reject that law and wait until a reasonable one could be written up, even if it meant postponing justice for African Americans temporarily. The women's groups pointed out that this attempt at a law protecting male victims was a farce and demanded it be redone. They did nothing to claim that any such law would be unacceptable.

ie: men are strong so they can only be rape victims if they're children or disabled.

To me, that quote seems to be implying social or political strength, not physical, but given the culture in the region, your's is a fair interpretation. So, assuming that that's what she meant, sure, she's a jackass and possibly a monster. That doesn't invalidate, in any way, the argument that the bill as written would allow obvious rapists to claim they were the "real victim", in the same way it would be idiotic to claim that the MRA movement's abhorrent beliefs invalidate the need for protection of male rape victims.

EDIT: Sevenperforce sheds important additional light on the issue, that the law this is being amended to covers only statutory rape. The articles I had been researching did indicate that the amendment was aimed at protecting young boys, but I had mistakenly assumed that they were just the poster child of the movement, not the sum total of its goal. The objections to the law did, however, go into discussion that the law would be able to be used by adult offenders in the manner outlined.

and so we move on to an assumption that men can't suffer reduced ability to consent: say by being too intoxicated to consent. So if you roofie a cute guy and have sex with him when he doesn't know what's going on: don't worry, you're in the clear.

I would hazard that seven is discriminating between "under duress" and "under no duress but not legally able to consent", and that a roofie would count as "coercion".

It seems unsupported to make any assumptions about bigotries seven is assuming.

Also are you completely certain of those statements or are you guessing because the summary from the story says it covers rape, not just statutory rape.

The articles discussing this do say that the focus of the bill is protecting male children, though they don't specifically say it is meant as an amendment to the statutory rape laws.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

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

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:01 pm UTC

would allow adult male rapists to use the language that child victims can and claim that, “she made me do it.”


again, no more than is the case in countries with gender neutral rape laws. If you go to the police about some guy in the US he can try claiming he was the real victim and never gave consent but I wouldn't bet much on his odds.

If you can find anything that implies that these laws wouldn't have been gender neutral, please do provide the link. though on that note the link you do provide above is to a paywall.

also, funny note, basically exactly the same thing happened in india when they tried to make rape laws gender neutral. Again, on the exact same basis that was used in this case and that you are using: ie, that a rapist could potentially turn around and say that the woman was the rapist and that he never gave consent.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 840879.cms

"Gender just, gender sensitive and not gender neutral rape laws," is what women's groups, human rights groups and activists are demanding.


Lawyer, Seema Mishra pointed out that one pernicious provision of the Ordinance 2013, upheld by the Committee report is blanket gender neutrality of the perpetrator of sexual harassment, assault and rape. "Put simply: unlike in existing law where the accused is male, the Committee recommendations if enacted into a proposed new Bill, will make it possible for women to be charged with these offences. This is wholly unacceptable," she said.


in all other situations, making the accused gender neutral means that complaints by women can be met with counter-complaints to build pressure on them to withdraw their complaint.


KrytenKoro wrote:That this Scott guy claims to be a rationalist and yet so dishonestly and maliciously misrepresented the situation...kinda blows all my faith in anything he says out of the water, even before reading the rest of his write-up. And then when I do...holy shit that Slate Star Codex article is filled with doublethink, projection, and just not fucking getting the point of what they're talking about. What a moron. Even Aaranson realised what he was doing wrong once he engaged in conversation, i.e., a whole heaping helping of projection, assuming no one else goes through what he goes through, treating women as the "other", and basic entitlement, just like all the people pointing out the flaws in his original argument said.


When someone tells you that they're suffering and it makes you feel uncomfortable the decent response isn't to call them more names. But then we've already established what kind of person you are.

it's depressing that when responding to an article about someone who felt so utterly and completely unentitled that he wanted to mutilate himself and attempted suicide to avoid any possibility of making others feel uncomfortable. He explains at length why calling such people entitled isn't nice and is basically like shouting "fatty" at a person in an anorexia ward... and your response is to call him entitled. every post you make gives a clearer and clearer picture of what kind of person you are.
Last edited by HungryHobo on Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:51 pm UTC, edited 2 times 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
sevenperforce
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:01 am UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby sevenperforce » Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:29 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
sevenperforce wrote:However, this proposed change is dealing with statutory rape. This is a type of rape where consent is abrogated not by overt coercion, but by the inability of one participant to legitimately consent. So it would make absolutely no sense to try and amend this law to also address adult-woman-on-adult-male rape, because that is a fundamentally different type of crime.


and so we move on to an assumption that men can't suffer reduced ability to consent: say by being too intoxicated to consent. So if you roofie a cute guy and mount with him when he doesn't know what's going on...

...then that's still not considered statutory rape. That's rape. But that's not statutory rape.

Statutory rape is a strict liability offense. The prosecutor need only prove that the act took place. It doesn't matter whether the victim consented, or the perpetrator thought the victim wasn't a minor, or anything like that. If you have sex with a 14-year-old then you're a statutory rapist, period.

That's why the language said "causes or makes it possible". The question is whether the act took place, not whether the act was coercive; the age of the victim is taken as a lack of consent by statute.

Rape by intoxication (whether with alcohol or drugs) is not a strict liability crime. The prosecutor need prove both that the act took place and that the perpetrator either created or took advantage of intoxication to override consent. That's a completely different legal standard, so it requires a completely different law.

KrytenKoro wrote:I would hazard that seven is discriminating between "under duress" and "under no duress but not legally able to consent", and that a roofie would count as "coercion".

Yes, I'm definitely discriminating between these two instances. More importantly, though, the law discriminates between these two instances. The latter is a strict liability crime; the former is not.

HungryHobo wrote:funny note, basically exactly the same thing happened in india when they tried to make rape laws gender neutral. Again, on the exact same basis that was used in this case and that you are using: ie, that a rapist could potentially turn around and say that the woman was the rapist and that he never gave consent.

The difference is that in the Israeli case the law would allow men to accuse their victims of statutory rape, which is nonsensical; the Indian case is about rape in general.

HungryHobo wrote:
Lawyer, Seema Mishra pointed out that one pernicious provision of the Ordinance 2013, upheld by the Committee report is blanket gender neutrality of the perpetrator of sexual harassment, assault and rape. "Put simply: unlike in existing law where the accused is male, the Committee recommendations if enacted into a proposed new Bill, will make it possible for women to be charged with these offences. This is wholly unacceptable," she said.

Insofar as we are talking about blanket rules, I agree with you -- obviously women are capable of committing rape against men just like men are capable of committing rape against women.

However, this is India we're talking about.

India is not the United States. Nor is it Israel. Violent misogyny in India is dramatically more prevalent than it is here, and social attitudes are markedly more patriarchal. Even here, male-on-female rape is "helped along" by the culture's acceptance of patriarchal gender roles exemplified by quotes like "No means yes if you know how to spot it" by that dickwad Limbaugh. In India, this attitude is exponentially more prevalent, particularly in the context of a caste system where female victims in lower castes than their rapists are very often ignored altogether.

For the sake of staunching the flood of violence against women in India, it may indeed be necessary to keep rape laws in India specifically gendered. Could this conceivably lead to injustice in specific cases of male victims? Yes. Would these laws be unjust if applied in a more egalitarian society? Yes. But for India, that might be necessary.

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

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:36 pm UTC

The difference is that in the Israeli case the law would allow men to accuse their victims of statutory rape, which is nonsensical; the Indian case is about rape in general.


again... that seems to be your... very loose interpretation of the article and nothing I see there implies that. it lists rape and statutory rape separately based on the circumstances. If you've got a more detailed breakdown, again, I'd be interested.

as to the rest... are you just playing devils advocate or are those your actual opinions?
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Existence of the Patriarchy

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:46 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:again, no more than is the case in countries with gender neutral rape laws. If you go to the police about some guy in the US he can try claiming he was the real victim and never gave consent but I wouldn't bet much on his odds.

If you can find anything that implies that these laws wouldn't have been gender neutral, please do provide the link. though on that note the link you do provide above is to a paywall.

It wasn't a paywall for me, but...put simply, no. The wording of this law, as described in any of the (secondary) sources I can find, would have enshrined "being allowed to enter a female" as rape of the male. That would be a defensible definition if the law was strictly in use for statutory rape, as it was marketed, but due to how it was written, it would be applicable to adults too.

The wording of the law itself, and the controversy surrounding the existing law that made a law protecting male rape victims necessary make the gender language clear.

also, funny note, basically exactly the same thing happened in india when they tried to make rape laws gender neutral. Again, on the exact same basis that was used in this case and that you are using: ie, that a rapist could potentially turn around and say that the woman was the rapist and that he never gave consent.

India is a different place than Israel. "Indian feminists" are different people than "Israeli feminists". I have no interest in derailing the conversation to research the ins and outs of the Indian case, as the only way the Indian situation would be relevant is if there were some shadowy international cabal of feminist groups corrupting society to oppress men. Since I believe we all agree there's no shadowy international cabal of masculinist groups meeting specifically to oppress women, we should probably not let paranoia swing the opposite way.

When someone tells you that they're suffering and it makes you feel uncomfortable the decent response isn't to call them more names. But then we've already established what kind of person you are.

(1) Are you talking about Scott Aaranson, or Scott Alexander the author of Slate Star Codex? Because the latter, the one who makes no claims of suffering who's choosing to roast feminism "on principle", is who I'm talking about and angrily criticizing.

As far as Aaranson is concerned -- he was a lot milder, but very much still criticized women based on his own internalized prejudice (like, that was the point of the whole post -- that he was the one attacking himself, not anyone outside of him). If a woman had a bad experience with a man and decided all men were pigs, yes we'd sympathize with her pain, but we wouldn't agree with her.

Seriously. Please research these things before operating based on narrative, 'cause you're choosing to paint me as some kind of feminist for pointing out that this Scott Alexander/Slate Star Codex guy is full of horseshit.


again... that seems to be your... very loose interpretation of the article and nothing I see there implies that. it lists rape and statutory rape separately based on the circumstances. If you've got a more detailed breakdown, again, I'd be interested.

as to the rest. are you just playing devils advocate or are those your actual opinions?

Most of the articles commenting on the bill state that objections are along those exact lines.

How have you not seen anything to imply that when it's in the bloody article. You've even posted a quote containing an argument along those lines.

If you truly haven't seen it, read the articles again.

EDIT: Yeah, you definitely managed to misread what I actually posted, because you're claiming that I called Aaranson names. I didn't, I called Alexander names, because Alexander is provably misrepresenting stuff in order to fit a very dishonest narrative.

For Aaranson, I noted what he admitted in the conversation he took place in (have you at least read that?): that his issue stemmed from a "whole heaping helping of projection, assuming no one else goes through what he goes through, treating women as the "other", and basic entitlement, just like all the people pointing out the flaws in his original argument said." Seriously, I can provide quotes -- this isn't me criticizing Aaranson at all, this is me reporting what Aaranson is on record as saying. For my record, I sympathize with Aaranson's pain, although I can identify how his pain stemmed from his own misapprehensions.
Last edited by KrytenKoro on Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests