4 ms·

Rape, along with paedophilia and drunken driving, has turned into the latest refer madness. Is it a problem? Yes, of course, just like child pornography, DUIs,

Rape, along with paedophilia and drunken driving, has turned into the latest refer madness. Is it a problem? Yes, of course, just like child pornography, DUIs, etc. are known societal taboos for good reason. But because absolutely no one can come out and speak rationally about these subjects, lest they appear in support of it, the authorities use it to push more and more unjust laws in the name of 'protecting the women and children', keeping us safe from terrorists, etc. DUI has been used to eviscerate the Bill of Rights, specifically the 4th Amendment. Fishing road-blocks are a common sight in almost all US states, now. I'm no conspiriacy theorist, but I'm starting to wonder if the continued lowering of BAC w/ regard to DUI and also anti-smoking laws are actually being used to limit the plebs ability to congregate together and discuss issues. Instead, we're all being led to isolation at home. Highest commented article on Slashdot right now relates to Utah's law requiring IT workers to report child porn, and child support laws are now being used to effectively bring back indentured servitude and restrict freedom of travel, almost exclusively for men. On college campuses, the feds have forced institutions to enforce their own version of SJW law when related to rape, where all common American (from British) forms of jurisprudence have been tossed aside.

Mz 11y ago
In the absence of a constructive means to actually empower women, you can assume this trend will continue. I am a woman. Every single time I try to talk about what women can do to take control of their lives in a world that will never be entirely without risk, I get attacked as "a rape apologist" and/or I get accused of "blaming the victim." As long as the world as a whole sees sex as a male prerogative and male privilege and not something a good woman would actually want, we shall have no constructive path forward. As long as women who get laid are automatically viewed as servicing a man, being taken advantage of, etc. we shall have no constructive path forward. If women want equal rights and equal opportunities, they need to start taking more responsibility for their own lives and stop playing the victim card, the helpless damsel in distress and so on. They need to quit screeching about how men need to behave better. They need to figure out what is within their own power to act upon and put their focus there.
- apnonsat 11y ago
  I agree with you. My take on this sort of activism is this: How Dare You. How dare you take away my agency to make my own choices as a human being. So what if I am 'female'? I make my own decisions. Who my lovers are (if I have any). Where I work (my own choice). What schooling I pursue (my own choice). I will NOT list my traumas or gender or race or disadvantages as some sort of sick measuring stick of worthiness of my right to speech. I will only list my species: Homo Sapiens. If I come across people who are not like myself, my gender, my culture, etc, I approach them with genuine curiosity and openness, and allow myself to be approached. I ask questions. I answer questions. I DO NOT JUDGE. If someone won't talk to me, I will ask someone else, and answer someone else. "No" IS a complete sentence, for all people of all types. So is "YES". Don't infantilize me. Do not try to protect me 'For My Own Good'. Let me make mistakes, let me learn, let me grow. Do not try to batter down holes in institutions to make space for me. Let me earn them. Let me find my own way. You shove me where I am 'needed' as a 'token' anything, and I will suffer the worst imposter syndrome ever. I can't even cheat at card games. Why are you forcing me to cheat at life? If we apply 'For Your Own Good' Code of Conducts, we destroy open and honest discourse between people and replace it with a sick sort of Kafkaesque reality. This sort of 'Righteous Thinking' has given us Residential Schools and Dukhubour child camps in Canada, Magdalene Laundries in the UK, The Spanish Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials, Zero Tolerance School Administrations, the School to Prison Pipelines, and Minimum Sentencing Policies in the USA, among so many other examples. The one thread in all these things? 'Guilty if you are Suspected in the First Place' thinking, and the invariable 'Punishment of the Innocent'. Collateral damage, anyone? Michele, I admire you, your hard work, your contributions to the world, (and they are many, large and small!) I also admire your candour, and the fact that you have opinions that are not mine. I cannot live in an echo chamber. Show me new thoughts, new views and new perspectives. I only ask the same of all other people as well. ALL PEOPLE. If we're always safe, we're weak and untried for the true tribulations of the world. With Eternal Kindness, -Anna Vit
  - Mz 11y ago
    Thank you. I was mostly away from keyboard yesterday. I just saw this today. Thank you for saying it.
dalke 11y ago
"I'm no conspiriacy theorist, but ... anti-smoking laws are actually being used to limit the plebs ability to congregate together and discuss issues" Smoking bans have not pushed people away from pubs, bars, etc. For example, see http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/63.abstract http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/63.abstract : > Some were concerned [comprehensive smoke-free regulations in Ireland] would cause pub patrons to move their smoking and drinking from inside pubs to inside homes. ... Conclusions: Smoking and drinking in the home was not greater in smoke-free Ireland than in the United Kingdom, where there was not a smoke-free law at the time of the survey. These findings add further support to the enactment of comprehensive smoke-free laws, as called for in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control." and at-home smoking rates in England went down after anti-smoking laws went into place ( http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7509/129.3.full http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7509/129.3.full ) so it's not like more people stayed at home to smoke. Moreover, the underlying premise of Starbucks was to be a "third place" to congregate. Who would spend all the political capital to push pro-plebe isolation laws when they are so easily circumvented by someone out to make a profit? For that matter, cars isolate us far more than DUI and anti-smoking laws. A walking neighborhood with its own local bars, parks, and businesses (instead of zoning purity) reduce isolation. And you can't arrested for DUI if you're walking home from the bar. As to your main topic - I quite disagree, but that isn't a topic I want to discuss.

Mz 11y ago

In the absence of a constructive means to actually empower women, you can assume this trend will continue. I am a woman. Every single time I try to talk about what women can do to take control of their lives in a world that will never be entirely without risk, I get attacked as "a rape apologist" and/or I get accused of "blaming the victim." As long as the world as a whole sees sex as a male prerogative and male privilege and not something a good woman would actually want, we shall have no constructive path forward. As long as women who get laid are automatically viewed as servicing a man, being taken advantage of, etc. we shall have no constructive path forward. If women want equal rights and equal opportunities, they need to start taking more responsibility for their own lives and stop playing the victim card, the helpless damsel in distress and so on. They need to quit screeching about how men need to behave better. They need to figure out what is within their own power to act upon and put their focus there.

apnonsat 11y ago
I agree with you. My take on this sort of activism is this: How Dare You. How dare you take away my agency to make my own choices as a human being. So what if I am 'female'? I make my own decisions. Who my lovers are (if I have any). Where I work (my own choice). What schooling I pursue (my own choice). I will NOT list my traumas or gender or race or disadvantages as some sort of sick measuring stick of worthiness of my right to speech. I will only list my species: Homo Sapiens. If I come across people who are not like myself, my gender, my culture, etc, I approach them with genuine curiosity and openness, and allow myself to be approached. I ask questions. I answer questions. I DO NOT JUDGE. If someone won't talk to me, I will ask someone else, and answer someone else. "No" IS a complete sentence, for all people of all types. So is "YES". Don't infantilize me. Do not try to protect me 'For My Own Good'. Let me make mistakes, let me learn, let me grow. Do not try to batter down holes in institutions to make space for me. Let me earn them. Let me find my own way. You shove me where I am 'needed' as a 'token' anything, and I will suffer the worst imposter syndrome ever. I can't even cheat at card games. Why are you forcing me to cheat at life? If we apply 'For Your Own Good' Code of Conducts, we destroy open and honest discourse between people and replace it with a sick sort of Kafkaesque reality. This sort of 'Righteous Thinking' has given us Residential Schools and Dukhubour child camps in Canada, Magdalene Laundries in the UK, The Spanish Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials, Zero Tolerance School Administrations, the School to Prison Pipelines, and Minimum Sentencing Policies in the USA, among so many other examples. The one thread in all these things? 'Guilty if you are Suspected in the First Place' thinking, and the invariable 'Punishment of the Innocent'. Collateral damage, anyone? Michele, I admire you, your hard work, your contributions to the world, (and they are many, large and small!) I also admire your candour, and the fact that you have opinions that are not mine. I cannot live in an echo chamber. Show me new thoughts, new views and new perspectives. I only ask the same of all other people as well. ALL PEOPLE. If we're always safe, we're weak and untried for the true tribulations of the world. With Eternal Kindness, -Anna Vit
- Mz 11y ago
  Thank you. I was mostly away from keyboard yesterday. I just saw this today. Thank you for saying it.

dalke 11y ago

"I'm no conspiriacy theorist, but ... anti-smoking laws are actually being used to limit the plebs ability to congregate together and discuss issues" Smoking bans have not pushed people away from pubs, bars, etc. For example, see http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/63.abstract http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/63.abstract : > Some were concerned [comprehensive smoke-free regulations in Ireland] would cause pub patrons to move their smoking and drinking from inside pubs to inside homes. ... Conclusions: Smoking and drinking in the home was not greater in smoke-free Ireland than in the United Kingdom, where there was not a smoke-free law at the time of the survey. These findings add further support to the enactment of comprehensive smoke-free laws, as called for in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control." and at-home smoking rates in England went down after anti-smoking laws went into place ( http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7509/129.3.full http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7509/129.3.full ) so it's not like more people stayed at home to smoke. Moreover, the underlying premise of Starbucks was to be a "third place" to congregate. Who would spend all the political capital to push pro-plebe isolation laws when they are so easily circumvented by someone out to make a profit? For that matter, cars isolate us far more than DUI and anti-smoking laws. A walking neighborhood with its own local bars, parks, and businesses (instead of zoning purity) reduce isolation. And you can't arrested for DUI if you're walking home from the bar. As to your main topic - I quite disagree, but that isn't a topic I want to discuss.