Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Interesting Discussions
What kind of Feminist are you? Take this QUIZ & find out!
Previous  1  2  3  4



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 25 2017, 4:10 pm
marina wrote:
There are many problems with the s-xual violence policies issued by the OCR in 2011. From my professional experience, there are Many.

But a failure of due process isn't one of them. Because no one has a fundamental right to attend any particular university. The accused assailants get all the process they are due in criminal courts. In university investigations, the ONLY thing at stake is your continued education at that institution- not your freedom, etc.

Universities dismiss students every day for much much less than being accused of a s-xual crime. Grad students are asked to leave because they're taking too long with their thesis or they aren't playing the politics well in the PhD world or whatever.

All of this may be unfair and wrong. But there's no due process or anything like that involved.

Perhaps using "due process" in the legal, constitutional manner is inaccurate. However, virtually every adverse action taken against a student in a university has a system whereby the accused knows the identity of his/her accusers; appropriate witnesses or experts may testify; appeals are possible; and at least some attempt is made to give the impression of fairness.

While many universities act responsibly in investigating s-xual violence charges, there are some whose kangeroo courts have simply run amok -- whether or not they deprived the accused of due process in a legal sense.

But, really, that just leads us to the conclusion that most sensible people seem to have embraced: Crimes should be reported to the police and universities should not be in the business of criminal investigation, law enforcement, or supplanting the court system.

Of course, when Emma Sulkowicz did that, she discovered that texting "I love you" to one's alleged rapist subsequent to the incident does not make the DA very enthusiastic about prosecution.
Back to top

amother
Fuchsia


 

Post Tue, Jul 25 2017, 4:57 pm
Fox wrote:
Whoops! My bad! I thought this was one of those what-celebrity-are-you-most-like kind of quizzes.

Alas, it's been a tough week for all kinds of feminists, as self-identifying members of their groups have worked overtime to undermine the image of feminists as people who just want equality of opportunity and choice for women.


* Self-described feminist Gigi Engle wrote an exhaustively detailed guide to a potentially risky s-xual practice without mentioning the risks -- and it was published in Teen Vogue, a publication technically aimed at older teens but primarily read by young teens and pre-teens. I think I'll skip providing the link on this one, ladies.



I agree with some of your other points, but I checked out this article and what other risks would you have had her mention besides the risk of stds and tearing, making using lube, going slow, and condoms requirements.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 25 2017, 5:45 pm
amother wrote:
I agree with some of your other points, but I checked out this article and what other risks would you have had her mention besides the risk of stds and tearing, making using lube, going slow, and condoms requirements.

I was attempting to be vague and tasteful by focusing on the risks.

It's not that her laundry list of risks was incomplete, but rather that she presents them as if they were minor concerns about an otherwise hunky-dory practice. Why is a self-described feminist writer in a publication claiming to be "rebellious, outspoken, empowering" telling young women that they should be open and enthusiastic about having s-x in a way that is likely to be painful for them?

Oh, and when challenged, the managing editor claimed that criticism was "rooted in homophobia." That response doesn't exactly give the impression that women's well-being or empowerment is what's on the table.

I'm not affirming or condemning the practice itself; neither my monkey nor my circus. There are plenty of resources out there for the curious. Teen Vogue's role was to subtly persuade young women that being a modern, empowered woman means being open to engaging in a s-xual practice that, frankly, a lot of people find painful and unpleasant -- including a lot of gay men. And making it sound fun and adventurous, too!

That doesn't sound like feminism to me. That sounds like pressure to have s-x, just tied up with a shinier bow.
Back to top

amother
Fuchsia


 

Post Tue, Jul 25 2017, 6:40 pm
Fox wrote:
I was attempting to be vague and tasteful by focusing on the risks.

It's not that her laundry list of risks was incomplete, but rather that she presents them as if they were minor concerns about an otherwise hunky-dory practice. Why is a self-described feminist writer in a publication claiming to be "rebellious, outspoken, empowering" telling young women that they should be open and enthusiastic about having s-x in a way that is likely to be painful for them?

Oh, and when challenged, the managing editor claimed that criticism was "rooted in homophobia." That response doesn't exactly give the impression that women's well-being or empowerment is what's on the table.

I'm not affirming or condemning the practice itself; neither my monkey nor my circus. There are plenty of resources out there for the curious. Teen Vogue's role was to subtly persuade young women that being a modern, empowered woman means being open to engaging in a s-xual practice that, frankly, a lot of people find painful and unpleasant -- including a lot of gay men. And making it sound fun and adventurous, too!

That doesn't sound like feminism to me. That sounds like pressure to have s-x, just tied up with a shinier bow.


I read it as trying to encourage kids who are going to be trying it anyway tips for being safe and healthy with that practice. As she mentioned it was highly relevant to LBGT teens, remember that a lot of young gay men may be reading teen vogue. But I also hear your concerns.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 25 2017, 7:04 pm
amother wrote:
As she mentioned it was highly relevant to LBGT teens, remember that a lot of young gay men may be reading teen vogue.

This was part of why people were, well, kind of confused.

The slant of the article did seem directed at a male audience. But if that was the intention, then the whole thing is even worse. A young gay man reading this article would be getting serious misinformation about common attitudes and expecatations among gay men as a result of the author's naivete or lack of research.

I'll leave it at that, since I don't want this thread shut down and because I seem to have wandered into yet another unseemly topic about which I know entirely too much. Smile

Suffice it to say that this article was more aimed at pushing a junior Cosmo image rather than empowering anyone.
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 25 2017, 9:30 pm
Fox wrote:
LOL, about 20 percent of the consensus on Imamother consists of the kind of conclusions you've used as an example of bad thinking!
....
Feminism was hijacked in the 90s by crazy feminists, and they haven't given it up. No matter how you package it, THAT is the face of feminism today.


If you don't agree with the imamother vilification of a whole group because of some of its members, I've no idea why you'd act the same way when it comes to feminism.

And the face of something often represents the loudest most obnoxious members, not the group, right? As an illustration, here's the face of Orthodoxy today, according to many pple:



Last edited by marina on Tue, Jul 25 2017, 9:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 25 2017, 9:46 pm
Fox wrote:

But, really, that just leads us to the conclusion that most sensible people seem to have embraced: Crimes should be reported to the police and universities should not be in the business of criminal investigation, law enforcement, or supplanting the court system.



1. Do you want schools to investigate bullying? Or just leave it up to the police?

If some kid is groping your 10 year old daughter in the lunch line and calling her a lesbo fag, do you want the school to wash its hands of its responsibilities and leave you child's welfare in the hands of a prosecutor who may decide to ignore all of it because you don't have enough evidence to prove s-xual assault beyond a reasonable doubt?


Because the *only* federal regulations requiring a school to investigate your daughter's s-xual-based bullying are *the same* ones requiring a university to investigate s-xual assault claims.

So think hard about whether you want all our schools to rely on the local police dept in handling school discipline.


2. It's all about the money. Universities are not subjected to any of these regulations unless they take federal funds. The government gives them federal funds and that's how it works- all magic comes with a price and all government funds come with strings attached. You don't want to investigate university s-xual assaults and just would prefer to leave them to the police? Then don't take millions in federal money from the very department that is asking you to investigate the allegations.
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 25 2017, 9:53 pm
Fox wrote:
I was attempting to be vague and tasteful by focusing on the risks.

It's not that her laundry list of risks was incomplete, but rather that she presents them as if they were minor concerns about an otherwise hunky-dory practice. Why is a self-described feminist writer in a publication claiming to be "rebellious, outspoken, empowering" telling young women that they should be open and enthusiastic about having s-x in a way that is likely to be painful for them?

Oh, and when challenged, the managing editor claimed that criticism was "rooted in homophobia." That response doesn't exactly give the impression that women's well-being or empowerment is what's on the table.

I'm not affirming or condemning the practice itself; neither my monkey nor my circus. There are plenty of resources out there for the curious. Teen Vogue's role was to subtly persuade young women that being a modern, empowered woman means being open to engaging in a s-xual practice that, frankly, a lot of people find painful and unpleasant -- including a lot of gay men. And making it sound fun and adventurous, too!

That doesn't sound like feminism to me. That sounds like pressure to have s-x, just tied up with a shinier bow.


This post comes slightly closer to what is actually wrong with many of these magazines: They haven't changed all that much from the 1940s. Instead of How to Make the Best Pot Roast to Keep Your Man, it's now How to Give the Best Blow Job to Keep Your Man. But the general theme is pretty much the same.
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Jul 26 2017, 8:48 am
marina wrote:
If you don't agree with the imamother vilification of a whole group because of some of its members, I've no idea why you'd act the same way when it comes to feminism.

And the face of something often represents the loudest most obnoxious members, not the group, right? As an illustration, here's the face of Orthodoxy today, according to many pple:



Define many. When things blew up with this - when was it? - there were many opposing voices. A lot of those were in deep pain because it didn't seem to compute with other talks of his they heard. (There are gas stations in NY that give out Torah CDs, so there are many people who might have heard a lot but selective talks, and this came out of left field.) So maybe those were the dlkz voices. But again, very broad opposition.
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Jul 26 2017, 8:52 am
marina wrote:
This post comes slightly closer to what is actually wrong with many of these magazines: They haven't changed all that much from the 1940s. Instead of How to Make the Best Pot Roast to Keep Your Man, it's now How to Give the Best Blow Job to Keep Your Man. But the general theme is pretty much the same.


Good Housekeeping has a column called Good Enough Housekeeping. Kind of like the Sally Field cartoon where she asks her husband why he's dusting the top of the bookcases as their tallest guest that evening is nowhere near that tall.
It's a start Wink
Seriously, though, you're absolutely right.
Back to top

amother
Coffee


 

Post Thu, Jul 27 2017, 1:04 am
40%- traditional
54%- liberal
56%- radical
61% - Marxist
54%- cultural
Back to top

ora_43




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Jul 27 2017, 7:26 am
marina wrote:
And the accused will be tried by both, if the prosecutor thinks there's enough evidence for a conviction. Not sure what you mean to say.

I mean that if someone thinks they're innocent, and able to prove their innocence in court, they can't just say "I want a real trial."

I was saying that just to emphasize the problem with the system. If the consequences of being expelled weren't so severe, or if the accused could choose to go to court, there wouldn't be a problem. But both those things are true.

I agree with debsey that this is a problem that goes beyond just s-x crime accusations. I think the rules about universities' right to expel students whenever they please made more sense when annual tuition was like 40% of the average annual salary, and not 120%.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Jul 27 2017, 12:14 pm
marina wrote:
1. Do you want schools to investigate bullying? Or just leave it up to the police?

If some kid is groping your 10 year old daughter in the lunch line and calling her a lesbo fag, do you want the school to wash its hands of its responsibilities and leave you child's welfare in the hands of a prosecutor who may decide to ignore all of it because you don't have enough evidence to prove s-xual assault beyond a reasonable doubt?

Because the *only* federal regulations requiring a school to investigate your daughter's s-xual-based bullying are *the same* ones requiring a university to investigate s-xual assault claims.

So think hard about whether you want all our schools to rely on the local police dept in handling school discipline.

This reminds me of why I didn't go into law. When you have a hammer, everything becomes a nail, and litigation is a powerful hammer.

If my 10-year-old daughter is groped in the lunch line, I expect the school to handle it appropriately because they are staffed by professional educators who are more-or-less dedicated to teaching and protecting children.

And if, G-d forbid, anyone's child actually attends a school where groping is condoned, I suggest she contact the child protective services agency of her state rather than rely on the fear of losing federal funds to solve the problem.

I don't deny that Title IX has done a great deal of good, but it's a hammer. It works on nails. Specifically, cases of funding disparity based on gender or in cases of systemic discrimination or harassment across an entire department, etc.

It was not intended to replace common sense or serve as a substitute when someone doesn't feel like reporting a crime to the police. There are state laws concerning groping, whether the victim is 10 or 90 and whether or not he/she is a student. There are state laws prohibiting harassment, stalking, and other forms of threatening behavior. They are imperfect, of course, as is their enforcement.

Here is an article I found very interesting and persuasive: Why Title IX Has Failed Everyone on Campus Rape

Note that it's from Deadspin -- part of the Gawker family -- and is written from a perspective based on intersectional feminism. So it's not a right-wing hit piece. It does an excellent job, IMHO, of dissecting some of the weaknesses of using Title IX to combat s-x crimes.

But one element that the article doesn't address, and the one relevant to a discussion of feminism, is that overuse of Title IX takes us back to the 50s, when universities acted in loco parentis to protect girls' virtue and safety. Feminists in the 60s rightfully demanded that universities treat them like sentient beings who could decide what risks they wanted to take -- not like fragile, cosseted orchids. Using Title IX as a tool to undo that progress will not help women in the long run.
Back to top

debsey




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Jul 27 2017, 1:14 pm
marina wrote:
1. Do you want schools to investigate bullying? Or just leave it up to the police?

If some kid is groping your 10 year old daughter in the lunch line and calling her a lesbo fag, do you want the school to wash its hands of its responsibilities and leave you child's welfare in the hands of a prosecutor who may decide to ignore all of it because you don't have enough evidence to prove s-xual assault beyond a reasonable doubt?


Because the *only* federal regulations requiring a school to investigate your daughter's s-xual-based bullying are *the same* ones requiring a university to investigate s-xual assault claims.

So think hard about whether you want all our schools to rely on the local police dept in handling school discipline.


2. It's all about the money. Universities are not subjected to any of these regulations unless they take federal funds. The government gives them federal funds and that's how it works- all magic comes with a price and all government funds come with strings attached. You don't want to investigate university s-xual assaults and just would prefer to leave them to the police? Then don't take millions in federal money from the very department that is asking you to investigate the allegations.


I actually would want justice department matters handled by the justice department. Isn't that what we always come out with on the child abuse threads? If you think a kid is being molested by a rebbe, do you call a Rabbi or the police?

I would want bullying that doesn't rise to the level of a crime investigated by the school, but I'd want checks and balances in place, so that guilt/innocence/reparation/education isn't solely up to the discretion of one dean who may or may not have an agenda.
Back to top

amother
Fuchsia


 

Post Thu, Jul 27 2017, 1:16 pm
marina wrote:
This post comes slightly closer to what is actually wrong with many of these magazines: They haven't changed all that much from the 1940s. Instead of How to Make the Best Pot Roast to Keep Your Man, it's now How to Give the Best Blow Job to Keep Your Man. But the general theme is pretty much the same.


Have you read some of the magazines aimed at women under age 40 lately. I find that most of the relations articles are making it good for yourself, how to achieve org@sm. And lots of articles about career empowerment.
Back to top
Page 4 of 4 Previous  1  2  3  4 Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
What kind of patient emergencies do therapists have?
by amother
32 Yesterday at 10:59 am View last post
Waterdale collection or A&M judaica
by amother
3 Tue, Mar 26 2024, 10:15 pm View last post
Jack & Becky pjs
by amother
3 Tue, Mar 26 2024, 2:52 pm View last post
H&M Suit 10 Mon, Mar 25 2024, 9:37 pm View last post
What kind of weekday shorts do boys wear in the summer?
by amother
3 Wed, Mar 20 2024, 12:30 pm View last post