Carbon Fiber Masculinity WTH is this?

Post Reply New Topic

Why are you injecting sex into it? We're discussing an ideology and its adherents, how said adherents often point at their ideology as some sort of proof of moral superiority.



Hardly. Indeed, you are the one constructing men of straw.



Actually, I'm of the opinion that a great number of feminists don't think highly of women at all. One of the multiple reasons for this opinion is the manner in which feminists will oft conflate "feminism" with "feminist/s" and further conflate both terms with "women", before attempting to weaponise the conflation in a bid to demonstrate hatred of the latter. You know, like you're doing here.



Now you're arguing against your own strawman with a position based solely on your own personal experiences. If you're going to misrepresent my position, at least put some effort into the rebuttal.



Which branch of feminism? Again, the term is being used nebulously. You may as well be saying "the guiding philosophy of Christianity is love".



And yet the only person presenting feminism in this way is you. If only you'd let me know not to take your post seriously at the beginning I could have avoided wasting time with my response.

Ironically, you've responded to criticism of how the word feminism is used by misusing the word feminism and implying that my objection is based on sex rather than actions. Thanks for demonstrating my point perfectly.

Tired of having all your bad faith arguments pointed out? We both know there's a better solution than turning tail. But whatever floats your boat and all that jazz.

I don't see any of the most prominent mainstream feminists advocating this. Amanda Marcotte, Rebecca Watson, etc.
feminists, in general, DO want there there to be social consequences for being an ass, but I don't see most of them advocating speech being banned. I do see more of it on the fringes than the 'man hating' shibboleth that so often comes up from the opposition.

I don think that's the case either. When was the last time you hard a mugging victim referred to in popular media as an 'alleged mugging victim'? It happens all the time to rape victims. Feminists want equal treatment.

Well due to the presumption of innocence a crime is alleged to have taken place until it is proven. That is just the way it has to work. Otherwise we might as well resort to trial by media, which we sort of have to an extent.

Rape and sexual abuse cases in some countries like the UK have a very special situation where the victim is entitled to anonymity and the accused isn't. This is maintained even after acquittal.

Everyone understands why that is the case, becuase many rapes don't go to court an fall apart in the investigation stage. Or they don't come forward in the first place.

Of course I am very sympathetic to rape victims. However there are sound reasons why this idea is not really compatible with due process. I know people feel very strongly about it but we need justice for all not justice for some.

Somebody who is found innocent, their reputation is ruined anyway.

Other crimes that are very serious indeed don't have this option.

We also can't have a situation where we are having secret trials either. Otherwise that is a police state.

Not all ideas are good ideas however well meaning.

Due process is something I feel very strongly about. I'm against thing like plea bargaining or the type of fast track trial the Rudy Guede was able to secure so he was never cross examined. Anything that doesn't further the interests of justice.

I believe LKL was right--you want to dither aimlessly in semantics and waste my time. I'm not interested in disingenuous discourse.

Your comment does not explain why when someone is mugged no one calls them an "alleged mugging victim" in the press. The language used around such crimes is different because the culture around such crimes is different. It's a serious problem that needs to be addressed--it makes finding justice when one has been sexually assaulted against extremely disheartening odds, and means much public rehashing of trauma as well as being re-traumatised by the investigation itself if one even gets that far in the process of seeking justice to get police to investigate and press charges. add media attention and harassment (rape victims who go public get LOTS of abuse from said public). We really need to work towards changing these things--I want to live in a world where the odds of successfully prosecuting a rape are not horrendously low, and where prison sentences for rape are sufficiently weighty (and involve intensive therapy to teach offenders the importance of humanising other people and respecting both personal and societal/legal boundaries).

That's not quite the case. Due to the presumption of innocence, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. We do not start off assuming that the victim is lying in home robberies, carjackings, muggings, vandalism, or pretty much any other crime besides rape.

As for the defendant's reputation being ruined, what: that doesn't happen with fraud accusations? With assault and battery? With armed robbery?

I married one; does that count as meeting and knowing a feminist personally? Also, I live in Seattle, so most of my friends identify as feminists, as do many of my coworkers, family members, people I encounter day to day, etc. I didn't form my opinions on feminism because I didn't actually know any feminists, I formed them because I know a lot of feminists and started seeing patterns.

Incidentally, my now ex wife (I left for reasons unrelated to feminism or politics of any kind, before you embarrass yourself trying to make a crack), herself an intersectional feminist of impeccable bona-fides, thought that the SJW contingent that was ascending at the time of our marriage was nuts and going to tank the credibility of the whole movement, something she was very prescient on.



Like I said, the "problem" here is not that I don't know enough feminists, it's that I know too many, and encounter even more online, and that I'm unimpressed at best with what I've seen. Also, I don't resent feminists, I don't feel that my "white, cic, hetero male privilege" is in any danger, but any group that promotes censorship, abhors critical thinking, employs vicious shaming on anyone who sets a foot out of an ever shifting line, erodes due process rights, and engages in a whole host of activities that I find troubling at best is a group I'm going to oppose, no matter who noble they think their ends are.

You don't need to actually get speech banned to censor it and it's speakers; look at the number of people who've been fired for offending the wrong group and had their workplace bombarded until they capitulated. Also, feminists don't seem to like it when social consequences go the other way, they call it harassment when it's done to them, and make alarming recommendations to the UN about what to to prevent it. I'm not talking about true threats or other already illegal communications here, just the type of thing you'd term "social consequences" if it were going in the other direction.

There are also attempts to push hate speech laws, or even to have micro aggressions punished by law, to say nothing of involving college disciplinary boards in instances of minor to non-existent "harassment" trying to get people sanctioned for what they said. I believe that all falls under the rubric of 'censorship'.



They're not equal crimes, so the comparison is meaningless. One of the major differences is that with muggings you're usually talking stranger on stranger crimes, so the media dynamic is more like 'this crime happened, here's a description and sketch of the suspect, call the cops if you think you saw him'. The rare stranger rape plays out similarly, while what I suspect you're talking about is more like acquaintance rape where the accused agrees the sex happened, but that it was consensual. That's a bit different in that you have a specific accused person, so if you describe the accuser as 'rape victim' you are de facto calling the accused a rapist without due process, and likely opening yourself up to a nasty defamation suit. So once again, feminists fail to understand the facts and call for accused people to be branded rapists without trial, proving my point.

Then there's all that Title IX BS of trying to move rape trials to schools where they can use the laughable 'preponderance of the evidence' standard instead of the usual 'beyond a reasonable doubt one used in actual court.

Even Bernie Sanders couldn't avoid that sand trap...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... n_one.html

You sure you're as familiar with the current strain of feminism as you think you are?

How dare I defend myself from bad faith ad hominem attacks on my character and strawman misrepresentations of my position, right?

A bit of advice. A good sign that it's far too late to make for the high ground is when you cannot help but throw out another ad hominem as you make your retreat.

Journalism 101: All crimes which have not been proven are "alleged" to been permitted by the accused, which is the presumption of innocence. If if it is not clear a crime has taken place it is "alleged" to have taken place especially if there are no charges or police report and the information is hearsay.

That is different for the police, of course they have to take seriously any accusation and investigate it.

Were the accuser chooses not pursue the matter in the courts but still airs it publicly, it has alleged to have taken place. That doesn't necessarily mean I don't believe them. In many cases I do, but if the accused doesn't have the opportunity to have their day in court people with believe what they want.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ictim.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... ement.html
http://www.csnne.com/boston-celtics/pol ... ers-okafor
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/nati ... 7615184033
http://wpri.com/2015/11/17/alleged-vict ... his-power/
http://www.tmz.com/2016/01/16/sandlot-m ... en-photos/
http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/71/1 ... ged-victim
http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/we ... speaks-out
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/ ... cti/npQX9/
https://www.enca.com/south-africa/ancwl ... ged-victim
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/financi ... s-35838427

..and more where that came from

I agree it isn't allays used well, but it is usually used when charge are not yet made. They may face charges, or may not have had charges pressed.

When it should not be used: the police say it is a murder due to evidence. It is stupid to call them an alleged murder victim then, becuase there is direct evidence they have been murdered.

My understanding of the word 'censorship' is that it involves banning something by definition.


The majority of 'person x fired for speech' cases have been cases where person x was being a hateful douchbag and the employers didn't want to be associated with that kind of person. You can't go around spouting the n-word or other ethnic slurs, going on road-rage rants at someone with a cell phone, advocating death camps or whatever, and expect no social consequences. That's not censorship, that's being repulsive to other humans.


Eh? Case in point?


I would probably oppose such laws. I don't know of any actual examples, but I generally come down on the side of free speech.

I'm no longer in academia, but I do find some of the current reports I'm hearing (not so much about feminism, actually; more about racial issues) somewhat disturbing.
There was one professor, years ago, who made what had to have been a forced apology in front of class after he'd made a homophobic joke about lesbians the week before; I felt uncomfortable for having to participate by witnessing it. It wasn't, 'It has been brought to my attention that I offended someone. Sorry,' it was 'Oh God please don't report me again I'll never say something like that again I don't want to be fired.' The joke in question had definitely been problematic, but the apology was over the top.



Oh, so it's different.

Not according to a lot of first-hand accounts I've heard and read from people who tried to report rapes to the police.
'What were you doing walking alone at night?'
'What were you doing wearing an outfit like that?'
'You should have known better than to get drunk in public.'
'She was asking for it.'


"You say he stole your money; he says you lent it to him voluntarily. How do we know you're not lying?"
How often do you hear cases like that?


'That's a bit different in that you have a specific accused person, so if you describe the accuser as 'mugging victim' you are de facto calling the accused a mugger without due process.

Schools have been doing a pretty abysmal job of protecting rape survivors. You hear of women pressured to drop the charges, of accused rapists getting a slap on the wrist, of women who drop out rather than continue to attend the same school as their rapist while the rapist goes on to graduate as though nothing had happened.

Well, I'm certainly not a 'young' feminist any more, and that article doesn't jibe with things I've read about the issue in the past. And, now that you mention it, it's been a year or so since I've frequented the main feminist websites (XX factor was never on my list, fwiw); I've been getting more of my info from podcasts that I can listen to on the go. So you may have a point...
But the accusations haven't really changed since the last time I argued this. 'Feminists hate men, feminists are over-sensitive, women are given too much power in rape accusations.' This despite the continuingly abysmal clearance rate of rape cases, as compared to other (both lesser and more serious) crimes.

Last edited by LKL on 16 Jan 2016, 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Something I notice about the first few of those links is that the 'alleged' victim is generally of lower socioeconomic status than the 'alleged' perpetrator.

Here are some from the main local paper:
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascoun ... 0_rew.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... ected.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/west-linn/ind ... ix_in.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index ... _with.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascoun ... an_su.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascoun ... sandy.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... ect_2.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... bbing.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/inde ... portl.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... ng_83.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... lly_i.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.s ... jesus.html

While the accused people are referred to as 'suspects' and the paper says that they 'allegedly' committed the crimes in question, there is never a question of whether or not a crime actually occurred.


Some general articles on rape in the media:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/16/opinion/c ... ial-media/
http://www.alternet.org/media/steubenvi ... pe-culture
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/3 ... pe-culture
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwester ... ntext=jclc
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... e_the.html
http://www.womenagainstrape.net/intheme ... ist-lawyer
http://www.womenagainstrape.net/intheme ... s-alarms-o