I’m also not a baptist.
…and you’re especially not a Southern Baptist, the most fundamentalist mainstream flavor of the baptists. The Bible says a lot of things, and every sect picks and chooses favorites, in this case there’s a verse about not permitting a woman to teach or hold authority over a man that’s probably relevant.
For any kind of industrial facility I’ve always felt like whosoever is most directly responsible for the safety and negative externalities of the facility should be required to live in the area most affected by them.
You responsible for safety at a chemical plant, our ass gets to live wherever will be most hit by a spill of whatever your most deadly product or reagent is.
You responsible for a data center, you get to live where the water and power issues are most felt.
The cause of the cultural behavior usually has a purpose though.
Yeah, but not necessarily one that is still relevant or even ever actually worked towards whatever goal there originally was. Cultural inertia is like that.
So it probably at some point had a purpose, but that purpose (whatever it was) might or might not apply any more or even be total nonsense.
All of that is fair, except for one thing: you absolutely can see phenotype. It being observable characteristics is literally part of the definition. The pheno- prefix has a Greek root meaning to show or display, same origin as in phenomenon. A phenotype is thus categorizing something based on how it appears.
She was suggesting women should be codified to have more rights. He wrote back something like, “As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh.”
Now I’m curious what rights she felt they should be codified to have.
People doing drugs? They should be allowed to. Banning them doesn’t work; the government should just properly regulate them. Like how the EU is dealing with cigarettes. And in that case people would be less inclined to hide drug use.
Yeah, but a business doesn’t want someone to OD in their public bathroom - it’s bad for business.
pedophile supporters.
G.O.P. - Guardians of Pedophiles
It’s always about trans women and almost never about trans men (not that this is the main problem).
This part is because it usually roots from TERFs and from the TERF perspective it’s only trans women that are a problem. To be exact, they believe that you cannot change your birth sex and that sex is what’s important, not how you present or even identify. They also believe that men are sort of fundamentally evil. They’re only worried about “men pretending to be women” as they call them (aka trans women) because trans women might enter women’s spaces and the purpose of women’s spaces is to protect women from men, and in their minds the only reasons a “man” might “pretend to be a woman” and be in a women’s space is to prey on women whose guard is down because there aren’t supposed to be men present.
Essentially if you were born with the curse of the penis, you are fundamentally evil and the only reason you could possibly want to use the ladies’ room is because you are a dangerous pervert looking to prey on unsuspecting women in a vulnerable position. The idea that someone might genuinely identify differently than their birth genitals might suggest and not out of some malicious intent is literally outside of their philosophy.
It’ll be interesting to see how this aligns with the Full Faith and Credit clause for someone who updates their birth certificate from another state that allows for that then uses the bathroom that aligns with said certificate.
Only if the bill mentions birth certificate as the source for one’s “biological sex” and not something about genotype or phenotype at birth (both of which have different issues).
I guess the right response to this is to get the absolute manliest-looking trans men to Idaho to use the public ladies’ room in places frequented by lots of the most fragile GOP-types. Monkey’s paw that shitstain of a bill.
then cite an MA THESIS in PSYCHOLOGY that doesn’t even say what you claim to think it says.
Only thing I knew of that even touched the topic - do you have a better source for someone looking into how other people perceive high or low levels of benevolent sexism in someone and how it relates to their presumptions regarding that person?
Also from the conclusions, since my direct quote of the abstract apparently doesn’t reflect the paper well enough for you: “While men’s endorsement of BS is viewed as a sign of a univalently positive attitude towards women, their rejection of BS is perceived as a sign of univalent sexist antipathy. Low BS men were judged as more hostile towards women than high BS men, suggesting that perceivers inferred that low BS men were indeed misogynists. Negative evaluations were reduced when men’s rejection of BS was attributed to egalitarian values, supporting the hypothesis that ambiguity about the motivations for low BS in men was partially responsible for the attribution of hostile sexist attitudes to low BS men.” I liked the phrasing in the abstract better, but you do you.
If I oppose a common but bullshit example of benevolent sexism (media minimizing wrongdoing when done by a woman), and your response is to invent an entire profile of me you can easily hate based on a single word choice (and it really does come off like your initial profiling was based heavily on my use of the word “malagency”, despite it being very often descriptive of reality), it very much does seem like an example of what that thesis was seeing - I expressed a not just low-BS view but an anti-BS view, and your response was to attribute it to misogyny. It felt appropriate to bring it up.
Going back to the original case, go look up other reporting on the case, without specifically searching for the use of the word “rape”. Note that the Guardian is one of the only outlets to call it what it is, while the vast majority of other sources refer to her as “having sex” or similar softening language. That just isn’t done when it’s an adult male and an underage female, unless you have the sort of wealth and/or status that lets you buy that kind of softening language.
And I say AI confidently
…and you would be wrong. Just because I’m aware of a somewhat obscure thesis that shows something interesting, doesn’t mean an AI chatbot was involved (I actually saved a copy of that one when I first read it years ago, and then Googled the title and author when writing the post to find a current link). Part of me wants to look up the value for em dash now and just start sprinkling them throughout just to fuck with you (you know, cause AI is fond of the em dash)…
You seem to have built an entire profile of me that you are very confidently very wrong about based on very, very little.
I also notice you didn’t engage with anything else.
To be fair, you don’t want to engage with the hypothetical because you and I both know of pairs of groups for A and B where you’d want to say those gasp are evidence of As being oppressed and also pairs of groups for A and B where those same gaps exist (and some are even wider than the previous case) where you’d want to attribute them to literally anything but that because your underlying worldview requires reality to conform to the prescribed hierarchies which means the need for an apologetic, which would prove my point. For anyone not knowing what I’m talking about, that same series of relationships between A and B show when A and B are black and white folks, respectively but also when they are men and women, respectively with the sex gap for some of those measures being larger than the race gap, though both apply to any given individual (and yes this means black men in particular get screwed by the criminal justice system being on the wrong end of both racial and sex gaps).
You don’t want to engage with me asking your opinion about the 2018 KY child custody law because the problem of course with the 2018 KY custody law and it’s rebuttable presumption of shared custody is it is on it’s face the least sex discriminatory policy attempted to date but who supported it and who opposed it is hard to stomach for a certain sort of person.
You didn’t engage with anything I said about Koss either. Which ultimately is built on the notion that Koss has expressed views that are…let’s just say unfortunate…for anyone who wants to consider male victims and female perps seriously. Since a lot of her work is foundational to sexual assault research, her leanings have also left a mark on that research (see things like often classifying common ways women sexually assault men in subcategories that make comparing it to men sexually assaulting women less intuitive). It’s not all bad though, things like “date rape” are useful terms and I actually like her talk about “unacknowledged victims” who essentially mentally frame what happened to them in a way to not make themselves victims, though I suspect she’d disagree with my view that this impacts male victims a great deal more than most think because of underlying social views about who perpetrators and victims can be making what happened to them not something they can readily identify for what it is.
Going to get ranty here, a bit stream of consciousness, but feel free to engage.
Lots of signs of some internet education and naturalized perspective going on here.
I’m being descriptive, not prescriptive - I’m not saying the way society does shit is good or right or inherently natural, just that it is (and I would prefer it otherwise). I know you operate from a model where the fundamental structure of society is “a system of social structures, and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women” as Sylvia Walby might put it, but that…doesn’t align with reality very well, especially not current reality. It (and related theories) are built on a foundation of Marxist-style class conflict which fits about as well as the demographic breakdown you’re using works as a proxy for socioeconomic status (this is why the similar class conflict logic for race fits better than it does for gender). Which is why if you look you can keep encountering situations in which society does the opposite of what patriarchy would predict, usually with some apologetic to shoehorn things back into position rather than consider alternatives. “The patriarchy hurts men too” is the equivalent of classical geocentrists inventing epicycles and deferents to shoehorn their model back into place when the sky did not behave like it should.
Let’s try a hypothetical. I’m going to divide adults into three groups based on a demographic axis. One of those groups I’m going to set aside because they either land in between the two groups I want to discuss, have a dramatically smaller population that makes comparisons unfair, or both. The other two I’m going to call A and B. All the following comparisons are relative to A and Bs share of the total population. As are more likely to be stopped by police. As are more likely to be arrested. As are more likely to be convicted when tried. As get longer prison sentences than Bs for the same charge. As are dramatically more likely to be killed by law enforcement. Violence against an A is seen as less serious than violence against a B, especially if a B is the perpetrator. People of either group tend to get higher punishments for hurting or killing a B than an A. Now, is this evidence of As being oppressed? Are As just innately criminal, evil and monstrous? Hell, is this somehow evidence of Bs being oppressed? Or are these stats totally meaningless to that kind of discussion? I’d post sources for those, but that would be telling how I’m grouping people and the whole point is to make you think about how your view of reality is decided by the model rather than the model describing reality.
“Malagency” is a word …
Malagency is the concept that society broadly tends to assign men more agency and responsibility than they often have and tends to assign women less agency and responsibility than they often have. That’s it. And it works well to predict what will actually happen in a wide variety of situations where expecting society to behave as “a system of social structures, and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women” would lead one to expect different results. This is of course fucked up and needs be opposed. But saying we need to kill benevolent sexism (and saying we need to stop minimizing women’s misdeeds is an example of this) will be read as hostile sexism by third parties, see Amy Young’s thesis “Lay misperceptions of the relationship between men’s benevolent and hostile sexism” which suggests that not engaging in benevolent sexism is viewed by third parties as hostile sexism, unless you clearly signpost that your actions are egalitarian in nature. To quote the abstract: “The low BS male target (compared to high BS male target) was judged to be higher on HS, less supportive of female professionals, less good of father and husband, and more likely to perpetrate domestic violence. Ratings of the low BS male target were as equally negative as those of the high HS male target. In Study 2, low BS male targets were judged to be low in hostility towards women only if they explicitly stated that their low BS was motivated by egalitarian values, otherwise men’s low BS was assumed to indicate misogyny.”
While I’m at it, how do you feel about the 2018 change in the law in KY regarding child custody in contested cases? The move to the notion that judges should start from a position of equally shared custody unless there’s a good reason to be otherwise? I’m curious because most of the backlash against it came from feminist circles, and it’s more or less exactly a policy position that MRAs had been fighting for for most of the prior decade+ using the phrase “a rebuttable presumption of shared custody” to describe the concept.
I am 100% certain that you do not give a single fuck about young men who are victims of sexual violence. You have even sunk to using their victimization to platform views that reproduce the conditions for that violence to continue. Vile behaviour.
You would be wrong. Though I’m curious how invoking the notion that men are often assigned by society greater agency/responsibility than they actually have while women are often assigned by society lesser agency/responsibility than they actually have (and that that often applies regardless of who benefits) would “reproduce the conditions for that violence to continue.” The whole point is that male victims (especially those with female perpetrators) are minimized as victims because they are treated as being more responsible for what happened to them while female perpetrators have language around them minimized because they’re viewed as less responsible for their misdeeds. The whole fucking “NICE” meme via South Park was from an episode that was basically a satire of this taken to the extreme. To be clear, this is a problem.
I know I go after her immediately below this, but Koss’ concept of unacknowledged victims I think impacts men even more than women as a consequence of societal malagency - if you get told by society time and again that only men perpetrate and women are only victims, that men are responsible for whatever happens to them, etc, etc and then something happens to you as a man that is done by a woman, you reframe and internalize it in a way that makes you not a victim and her not a perpetrator. I know that’s how it worked for me, and it took me years and exposure to ideas not in that framing to get over that shit. That was almost 20 years ago, thanks for my daily reminder I’m turning into an old man.
This line of minimizing female perps extends into the research as well, it’s why for example categories like “made to penetrate” exist and get filed under a subcategory of “other” in some of the research. A lot of the foundational research around intimate partner and sexual violence operated by explicitly minimizing male victims and female perps. See Mary Koss as an example (you may know her as the person who produced the first real study on rape in the US, who came up with the oft-repeated “1-in-4” stat, who coined the term “date rape”, testified before Congress to get VAWA passed, her survey instrument [SES] is still widely used, etc, etc). Once in an interview when asked about male victims of female perps she responded in disbelief with “How would that happen… how would that happen by force or threat of force or when the victim is unable to consent? How does that happen?” and when given an example of a man who had been drugged into compliance declared that that was merely “unwanted contact.” She had also separately stated on the topic “It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.” If malagency is the fruit of a poison tree that poisons anything it touches as you seem to think, why isn’t anything descending from her work on the topic likewise, aside from that being most of the research on the topic?
“To women and billionaires.” Now, that is a telling line to draw. Did you think I pointed out the cultural moment because billionaires are like women
I’m not implying some sort of general moral equivalency between women and billionaires, but rather merely that both categories routinely get their misdeeds minimized in reporting. The reasons for both are different, with billionaires essentially paying for a white glove treatment while for women it’s an effect of the general malagency given them by society. The net effect in how their sexual offenses typically get reported is essentially the same, even if the cause is very different.
If she were a man, that it was called “rape” would be par the course rather than a refreshing exception. Hell, I looked up this very case on Google and of the top 5 stories on the case, 2 refer to her as “having sex”, two refer to a “sex crime” (and in the article describe that crime using “having sex” rather than “rape”) and the other was the same Guardian article linked in this Lemmy thread. So, yeah…refreshing exception. May it be the start of a trend.
Much like I expect her 10 and 7 year maximum sentences will almost certainly add up to less than 5, probably less than 3, with a significant chance she gets a suspended sentence or some probation instead of prison time - as a society we don’t like putting women in prison and we like putting them in prison as long as similarly positioned men even less. We won’t see that result until April 17, though.
In America, where most states the age of consent is 18,
It isn’t. 16 is more common (30 states, if I recall?), with only around a dozen having an age of consent of 18. It seems like more because those states include NY and CA, which are where most of the media in the US comes from. But yeah, most states have close in age exceptions and a couple have marriage as an exception to age of consent. Tugging that thread further, 48 states require you to be 18 to get married without an exception (usually involving court and/or parental consent), one requires you to be 19 and one 21. When you include those exceptions the hard minimum age of marriage in most states is 16 with several higher, with one state where it’s 15 and four with no hard minimum at all (including California and Mississippi, Massachusetts was one of these until 2018).
Probably more common than anyone thinks, though. Just because of the illicit nature of it, most of them are going to be trying to conceal themselves, and a bunch more are going to sublimate their sexuality however they have to out of fear of punishment. Most of them aren’t going to publicly set up and attend NAMBLA meetings, for example.
Guardians of Pedos. They aren’t all pedos themselves, but they sure as hell work to protect them.
I mean in the sense that I have years of experience of one set of things happening, and this is a violation of that trend. It’s either unique in terms of the author or the incident in some way that means she doesn’t get the softened language typically granted to women and billionaires when they do wrong, or this is the start of a trend. If the latter, I welcome it.
It’s interesting that you concluded with “this must be an exceptionally violent case” and not “culture is shifting enough that explicitly calling these cases ‘rape’ is becoming more acceptable.”
Cynicism. Well founded cynicism. Though if this is the beginning of a trend and not a one-off I’ll be happy to see it.
Two charges. Two sentences. Be surprised if she gets even 5 years in actual prison.
I mean, it’s much more often called “a romp” or “an affair” when it’s a female predator and a young male victim. Usually the r word is reserved for female victims. Hell, one of the experts who did a bunch of the foundational work in studying SA in an interview about a decade ago balked at the idea that men could be victims of women at all.
Epstein’s friends get softened language because they’re rich and powerful. Women usually get softened language by default. I wonder what made her so awful for this to be reported as a “rape” and not a “romp”?
In their cultural context, that wouldn’t be that far outside the norm. The notion that there’s this magical line at 16-18 (in the US, depending on the state - possibly lower if the older partner is close in age or if they are married) is a 20th century invention. So, a guy from a text about 2000 years ago not expressing views on age and sexuality that were invented less than a hundred years ago is not exactly shocking.
Before the industrial revolution, children were often treated like smaller adults. Childhood was much shorter than nowadays and adolescence basically wasn’t a thing culturally for the vast majority of history.