If some of the sources are true, that is due to the bad treatment they get, as well as the hardship they face after getting out of jail, where it might harder for them to get jobs. Plus, how do we know rapists aren't more likely to rape again if they get out so quickly?
It is a fact true in any western nation, even those who put a lot more emphasis on resocialization than the US. It is just particularly bad in the US.
We know that because we have common sense: A rapist who got caught and convicted is in a sex offender list and on probation (in this case).
If jail would scare him (and he learned to see it from the inside), he would definitely not commit a crime again, because he does not want to go there again.
We know that people who never were in jail or only a short time are more afraid of jail because they still have things to lose.
Someone who rot 5 years in jail anyway does not really care. He often cannot adjust well to the outside anymore anyway, so jail does not scare him quite as much.
We have direct correlations of jailtime and likelyhood to offend again.
Chances are that someone who was 5 years in jail comes out without any friends outside of jail and a lot of ties to criminals inside it.
Thinking he is LESS LIKELY to become a criminal again than someone who still has ties outside and things to lose is a very off thought.
Most rapists shouldn't be killed, but they shouldn't be let out without punishment or some sort of a way to tell them they're in deep shit if they sexually assault anyone. Brock damaged the life of his victim, why shouldn't he get punished for that? if he got out early, then he could get out early again. It isn't as simple as groping someone, he actually took her to an isolated area and proceeded to have sex with her, all while she was unconscious. That alone says he knew he wasn't doing the right thing.
Criminals deserve some sort of punishment. Speeders get tickets, serial killers get capital punishment, embezzlers and frauds get jail time, so why shouldn't a teenage/near-adult person get punished for having sex without consent?
Well, if you ask me, noone should be killed by law.
Noone is let out without punishment in a rape case. Being on a sex offender list, going to jail even if just some month and having to go to therapy are forms of punishment. And the probation is, too.
You make it seem like he had no punishment, but he had.
And your thought of 'he can get out early again' is really nonsense. Probation does not work that way. If he offends again he will be in jail for several years.
And if that does not scare him, more jailtime would not have done it, either.
And to be fair, if i was to have sex with a girl on the outside, i would do it in an isolated area too, so i am not sure what THAT is going to say?
There are several aspects to this crime, some mitigate his guilt, some enhance it, and the judge has heard all of them.
And the problem is that if feminists talk about rape culture and sexist ideas hold in our society which can play a big role in sexual crimes, they get laughed at.
From what I can tell, the people who get ridiculed and laughed at tend to be those who prefer expanding the word "rape" so much that it actually devalues what the word is and the actual crime that goes on. I doubt that this is a prevailing feminist thought, but it still seems to be going on in some circles.
From what I can tell, the people who get ridiculed and laughed at tend to be those who prefer expanding the word "rape" so much that it actually devalues what the word is and the actual crime that goes on. I doubt that this is a prevailing feminist thought, but it still seems to be going on in some circles.
It is true that there are two different versions of the word rape.
Some people use it for any unwanted sexual advances, and some use it in the strict legal sense of it, which leads to anger and confusion.
Or to things like whoopy goldberg using the term 'it was not rape-rape'.
I will probably get disagreement for this, but i think it makes sense to see rape as a spectrum.
If we say every forceful or unwanted sexual advances are rape , then we also have to say that some forms of rape or more like scummy behaviour than a crime.
It makes sense to see it that way to examine the mechanism of exerting power for sexual reasons, no matter how small and hidden this power exertion may be.
It however makes it also true that in some cases, we could say 'oh well, it was rape, but not really a big deal'.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Isn't it horrible how rape and sexual abuse is most of the time not decried due to it being horrible, but used to destroy a person?
Not that someone who abused another should not be held accountable for it, but to ignore someone's behaviour until you have a reason to use it against him is not the way it should go.
I will focus on the election sex scandal here, but that is just the tip of it.
I will for now not go much into it what i think about the allegations against clinton and trump.
In both cases, the case can be made that both are definitely unfit to be in a position of power ethically (even if clinton was and was not horrible at it, but still) and in both cases, it cannot be outright denied that a rape or several rapes took place, no matter what one might think happened (because none of them has been convicted, at least for now).
But what we do know is the following: After clinton got accused of rape and abuse, there was a moderate outcry for some time, until it simply vanished and people were cool with it. Bill clinton was still a popular figure and welcome guest in public appearances. We know what donald trump thought about an alleged sexual harassment https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...smissed-sex-allegations-against-bill-clinton/
So either Trump believed clinton and uses the severe allegations against a man he thinks is not guilty, or he protected someone he thought is guilty.
Still, he has no problem with using the women he decried as losers before and suddenly thinks bill is a horrible person.
And the same is true for the clinton campaign. While they let out trumps arguably most horrible PROVEN offense yet (the abuse of his first wife, while any rapeclaims against him are not proven), they are very happy to say he is a terrible person (not in the words, but the meaning) because he mistreated women and his workers. Fine, but he did that since forever. Hillary and Bill were at his last Wedding in 2005 and having fun with the trumps. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...le-embrace-2005-wedding-Melania-Mar-Lago.html
The Alicia Machado thing, his mistreatment of his workers and the alleged rape of his first wife came long before that, but that didnt seem to be an issue.
So again: Either they didnt find his behaviour that offensive back then and just use it now, or they played along with, in their words, unacceptable behaviour towards women for whichever reasons.
And THAT is undignified. Whether one believes allegations against another is a factual decision and ONE thing.
Whether one uses allegations when it seems easy to do so and subsequently uses women who (even if they might lie) claim they are victims of a horrible crime is a completely different thing, and it is upsetting.
Gross behaviour against women should not be used.
Even if you are okay with sexist remarks of a friend (and arguably, the clintons and the trumps behaved as such) because you still think the other is a decent guy, that is fine by me, but then don't suddenly say how offensive he is when you stop liking him.
The victims of sexual abuse deserve better than to be used.
If any of them, Bill or Trump, committed a crime, they should be convicted for it (even if at least in bill's case, that is impossible due to the timeframe by now).
Or at least, if you believe he did it, you should not invite him into your shows and whatnot.
I for example would never watch any woody allen movie ever again because i believe, yes, he committed abuse.
Every woman who claims she was raped or abused deserves to have people looking into her case and only making up their mind about it before they saw all information regarding the case. If she is then don't believed, so be it. But only suddenly believing someone when it is opportune is just pathetic.
Feminism is a good concept overall.
It talks about equal rights regardless of one's genders though I do not like Feminazis, but I guess there are bad people in every community.
Regardless, I support Feminism
All I have to say is I've been paid less than a man doing the same work with more experience/training (not just one job). I've been told many many times that my body will be sexualised if I dress a certain way. I've been told my husband will earn more money than me and his career is more important. I've been told I should have children instead of a career. I've had clients tell me they would prefer to see a male coworker. I've had creeps tell me when I was 12 I had "a nice ass" and was told I couldn't do something at former jobs because of my gender countless times.
I've always wondered why men have a problem with feminism and women gaining equality. But then I realized it's because if women are given more freedom, then we'll lose our "superiority."
From what I can tell, the people who get ridiculed and laughed at tend to be those who prefer expanding the word "rape" so much that it actually devalues what the word is and the actual crime that goes on. I doubt that this is a prevailing feminist thought, but it still seems to be going on in some circles.
I wouldn't say this word has been devalued but reexamined. Rape means any non-consensual sex and when anyone is pressured into it whether or not that individual faught back, screamed, or was passed out. It's painful for women when they are not ready for sex and it doesn't have to mean the other individual was violent. Any force, manipulation or physical, is abusive and has the same impact. I've known women in emotional abusive relationships and even though they were not "attacked" they were raped everytime they honestly didn't want to have sex.
What baffles me is most sexual assult cases end up being a "he said she said" in court (kinda hard to prove grabbing or harassment) and the mans word ends up being more creditable. Most sexual assult accusers rarely get convections (http://www.sexassault.ca/statistics.htm). Also, going to prove rape at a police station means they have to get samples, which can be tramatising for victims. In most jurisdictions, the law disfavours the victims.
I wouldn't say this word has been devalued but reexamined. Rape means any non-consensual sex and when anyone is pressured into it whether or not that individual faught back, screamed, or was passed out. It's painful for women when they are not ready for sex and it doesn't have to mean the other individual was violent. Any force, manipulation or physical, is abusive and has the same impact. I've known women in emotional abusive relationships and even though they were not "attacked" they were raped everytime they honestly didn't want to have sex.
What baffles me is most sexual assult cases end up being a "he said she said" in court (kinda hard to prove grabbing or harassment) and the mans word ends up being more creditable. Most sexual assult accusers rarely get convections (http://www.sexassault.ca/statistics.htm). Also, going to prove rape at a police station means they have to get samples, which can be tramatising for victims. In most jurisdictions, the law disfavours the victims.
Well, but that would be more or less the point xi0 is making. Granted that there are cases where what you describe is reasonable but there are also situations where the word rape is used and it does not really fit into the situation either. Expanding on the meaning of a word invariably devalues it as the case with many other words. Who even knows what a hipster is today? I would argue the situation here should be along the lines of all rape being sexual assault but not all sexual assault is rape (though there are situations where the line is fairly blurred of course).
Well, what is the alternative to the "he said, she said" bit? Realistically speaking the western world's system of justice is built on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. It's even a pillar of democracy itself. Assault and rape victims absolutely deserve to be heard but that is a dramatically different thing from having a right to be believed, specially by a justice system. A system that doesn't take the whole "innocent until proven guilty" seriously is by definition broken and brutal. Now, it is absolutely true that assault victims are disfavored but not in the context of the whole "innocent until proven otherwise" (that is just an unfortunate reality of a hard to prove crime) but rather in the trials themselves being inherently unfair via arguments like "look at what she was wearing", "why was she there at that time", and whatever other variety of "she was being a slut and asked for it".
Well, but that would be more or less the point xi0 is making. Granted that there are cases where what you describe is reasonable but there are also situations where the word rape is used and it does not really fit into the situation either. Expanding on the meaning of a word invariably devalues it as the case with many other words. Who even knows what a hipster is today? I would argue the situation here should be along the lines of all rape being sexual assault but not all sexual assault is rape (though there are situations where the line is fairly blurred of course).
Well, what is the alternative to the "he said, she said" bit? Realistically speaking the western world's system of justice is built on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. It's even a pillar of democracy itself. Assault and rape victims absolutely deserve to be heard but that is a dramatically different thing from having a right to be believed, specially by a justice system. A system that doesn't take the whole "innocent until proven guilty" seriously is by definition broken and brutal. Now, it is absolutely true that assault victims are disfavored but not in the context of the whole "innocent until proven otherwise" (that is just an unfortunate reality of a hard to prove crime) but rather in the trials themselves being inherently unfair via arguments like "look at what she was wearing", "why was she there at that time", and whatever other variety of "she was being a slut and asked for it".
No it's not devalued if it has been explanded. It's opening up people's eyes to those that anyone who did not consent to sexual activity is rape. Realistically, not all rape is some random guy attacking a woman. Martital rape wasn't unheard of years ago same with rape that wasn't vaginal. If that word wasn't expanded those that were abused would have their voices unheard. It also helps men because they get raped too so feminism also helps mens rights.
That still says those that went forward to report sexual assult are liars and are not believable. The court system needs to be revamped because instead of believing the testimony of the victim they try and place blame. It's hard to prove and it doesn't work in the framework of this system. It doesn't mean the "innocent until proven guilty" is challenged, just whose word is more creditable needs to be.
That still says those that went forward to report sexual assult are liars and are not believable. The court system needs to be revamped because instead of believing the testimony of the victim they try and place blame. It's hard to prove and it doesn't work in the framework of this system. It doesn't mean the "innocent until proven guilty" is challenged, just whose word is more creditable needs to be.
Revamped how? This still sounds quite literally like you are suggesting the system should take a more flexible approach to the whole "innocent until proven otherwise" thing. Credibility of someone's word should be based solely and exclusively on actual relevant evidence, nothing else, regardless of whether the case is rape or petty theft. If the standard is less than that you risk a situation where people get convicted or treated as guilty even when there is no evidence to back that up. I am not sure of what in the court system itself would have to be revamped in this context. It is absolutely true that rape in courts is basically handled by blaming the victim but from what I can tell the issue here is lawyers and judges who buy into this arguments. This seems more like a cultural issue rather than a specific bug in the court system. Well, you could make the point that this cultural issue ruins the court system but that is still different from the fix being at the court system specifically. This would be more about teaching judges, juries, lawyers and people in general that rape is never the victim's fault.
I've always wondered why men have a problem with feminism and women gaining equality. But then I realized it's because if women are given more freedom, then we'll lose our "superiority."
The reality is more complicated than that. It's not just men who may have issues with feminism, but women too. Ditto for feminists. Many feminists (both women and men) support the men's rights movement too.
The reality is more complicated than that. It's not just men who may have issues with feminism, but women too. Ditto for feminists. Many feminists (both women and men) support the men's rights movement too.
However, those rights shouldn't infridge on others. Feminism by definition is just so women can gain the same hold men have on society: equal pay, equal rights and the same social standards (not forced to pop out children and have financial independence). Men shouldn't be disadvantaged by having a female coworker be paid the same rate and have the same opportunity for promotions as him. A lot of this so called "mens rights movement" wants rape to be legal (http://globalnews.ca/news/2493330/m...ctivist-meetings-planned-for-canadian-cities/), which obviously puts women at a disadvantage but also men (they get raped too). In other words, they ("mens rights") just want to get away with dominative power and nothing to do with gender equality.
The reality is more complicated than that. It's not just men who may have issues with feminism, but women too. Ditto for feminists. Many feminists (both women and men) support the men's rights movement too.
True, some women don't like the idea of feminism either, but there are far less women against it than there are men. Meninism exists to counter feminism, even though for the most part men have all the advantage. One of the few rights men lack are usually due to gender role, like losing custody of their children just because women are seen as better caretakers. Tons of feminists actually support equality for men there, but other than that, it's hard to think of where men's rights are lacking.
A lot of women even brought up how Viagra can be acquired via insurance, but birth control can't, I think? I forgot, honestly.
As far as I can tell, that's not actually the case. I guess the things some of the views MRAs or Redpillers espouse and some of the stuff the Meninist Twitter account put out may have overlapped (in some funny irony), but I'm not aware of anyone out there legitimately going around and calling themselves a "Meninist". The entire point of the meme was to satirize third-wave feminism and outrage culture.
It's a shame, because there are at least some supposedly "MRA issues" that I think are valid, but it unfortunately gets drowned out for me by a lot of the horseshit PUA/Red Pill nonsense.
True, some women don't like the idea of feminism either, but there are far less women against it than there are men. Meninism exists to counter feminism, even though for the most part men have all the advantage. One of the few rights men lack are usually due to gender role, like losing custody of their children just because women are seen as better caretakers. Tons of feminists actually support equality for men there, but other than that, it's hard to think of where men's rights are lacking.
A lot of women even brought up how Viagra can be acquired via insurance, but birth control can't, I think? I forgot, honestly.
Depends on the insurance but usually if there is a prescription it's covered in whatever plan someone has. That's another reason why the bc pill shouldn't be issued by pharmacists. That and it's a medication with side effects and should be monitored by a doctor. Here in Canada, medications I think are balanced. They even are starting to have the HPV vaccine for boys but that vaccine is expensive without coverage.
However, those rights shouldn't infridge on others. Feminism by definition is just so women can gain the same hold men have on society: equal pay, equal rights and the same social standards (not forced to pop out children and have financial independence). Men shouldn't be disadvantaged by having a female coworker be paid the same rate and have the same opportunity for promotions as him. A lot of this so called "mens rights movement" wants rape to be legal (http://globalnews.ca/news/2493330/m...ctivist-meetings-planned-for-canadian-cities/), which obviously puts women at a disadvantage but also men (they get raped too). In other words, they ("mens rights") just want to get away with dominative power and nothing to do with gender equality.
Feminism has a PR problem. Negative perceptions tend to derive from media distortion--not the movement's mission of equality for the sexes at work and at home. More importantly, many women, and men, don't realize equality has yet to be achieved. Also, solving issues such as the wage gap aren't that simple. No matter what OECD country you visit, you'll find wage gaps aren't just influenced by gender, but by other factors like race/ethnicity, education, geography, and class. Human nature is very, very dynamic.
Hardly anyone disputes equal pay and equal rights, though social standards contribute to the discrepancies we see. Social expectations are complicated. There's more to it than just how men and women interact with one another, but how men interact with men and how women interact with women. Biological differences exist too. There are about 100 differences between the two genders in the brain alone. Culture is highly influential as well. When you speak of women not wanting to be forced to pop out children, what do you mean? Abortion? Societal pressure for women to bear children? Not everyone will agree with your interpretations. Abortion is self-explanatory. Societal pressure? Parents pressing their daughters and sons is nothing new. It may even be viewed as necessary. Japan is encouraging women to bear children because its population is aging and shrinking. You need a stable population to maintain job growth. Technology hasn't reached the point where children can be grown in test tubes.
Your example of a "men's right activist" is arguably a strawman's argument. When I speak of such people, I'm referring to women such as Karen DeCrow and men like Warren Farrell. Daryush Valizadeh is a troll, but let's take him seriously. People who feel a need to dominate others are insecure. In the U.S., growing joblessness, the growth of single-parent households, stagnating incomes for men, men's tendency to self-medicate for stress with drugs and alcohol, etc. fuel insecurity for many men. Unfortunately, they take their anger out on others. It isn't just women, but people of color, the undeserving poor, etc.
True, some women don't like the idea of feminism either, but there are far less women against it than there are men. Meninism exists to counter feminism, even though for the most part men have all the advantage. One of the few rights men lack are usually due to gender role, like losing custody of their children just because women are seen as better caretakers. Tons of feminists actually support equality for men there, but other than that, it's hard to think of where men's rights are lacking.
I don't speak for other countries, but I do speak for the U.S. The Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S. was killed by a woman, Phyllis Schlafly. Support for feminist policies such as equal pay is widespread across gender and the political spectrum, but I'm not entirely sure your assertion that women's skepticism of feminism is rare. Evidence seems mixed on that. For example, a national survey by the Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation found 6 in 10 women call themselves a feminist, but Yougov found that only less than a third of all women identify as feminists. Polls have found that the number of Americans who identify as a feminist depends on how the question is asked. And that isn't getting started on people's varying interpretations of what constitutes feminism.
Issues such as domestic assault, the gender gap, etc. are well-documented. Many societal problems are still overlooked, however, and cut across both genders. For girls, consider girls' bullying. Often times, girls are bullied by other girls, and it's hard to catch because of how it's done. In the workplace, bullying always isn't perpetrated by the male colleague, but is often female-on-female. For the LGBT community, consider domestic assault. Rates of domestic assault are possibly higher for same-sex couples than they are for heterosexuals. Men have many problems that are well-documented, but not well publicized. Men often die younger than women. Men tend to have higher rates of substance abuse and die from overdoses. About a quarter of all nonfatal domestic violence incidents occur to men. About 40% of the victims of severe physical violence are men. On psychological aggression from an intimate partner, the CDC found both genders are almost 50/50 with each another. So on and so forth. Problems with the sexes can't be viewed in black-and-white terms. Issues for men and women must be solved by examining the bigger picture.
Societal problems can also influenced by environmental pollution. Gasoline lead may explain as much as 90% of the rise and fall of violent crime over the past half century. This is relevant because the increase in crime helped fuel mass incarceration, and while incarceration rates for men are falling, incarceration rates for women are going up. One issue that ought to concern feminists is the rate of women with severe mental illness are being jailed up. In that article I have linked, it highlights how about 1/3 of all women in jail have a serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or major depression – more than twice the rate that exists for jailed men and about six times that of women in the general public. Are prisons always appropriate for such individuals? Certainly not.
A lot of women even brought up how Viagra can be acquired via insurance, but birth control can't, I think? I forgot, honestly.
Yes. Prior to the ACA, insurers often didn't cover women-related health items like birth control and were charged more than men, even if the level of coverage was the same. You could even be denied coverage for "pre-existing conditions" such as domestic assault and pregnancy. On top of that, dealing with ignoramuses is a constant headache for medical providers because many policymakers are clueless by the fact many women take birth control for health reasons, like having issues with their reproductive system.
I don't speak for other countries, but I do speak for the U.S. The Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S. was killed by a woman, Phyllis Schlafly. Support for feminist policies such as equal pay is widespread across gender and the political spectrum, but I'm not entirely sure your assertion that women's skepticism of feminism is rare. Evidence seems mixed on that. For example, a national survey by the Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation found 6 in 10 women call themselves a feminist, but Yougov found that only less than a third of all women identify as feminists. Polls have found that the number of Americans who identify as a feminist depends on how the question is asked. And that isn't getting started on people's varying interpretations of what constitutes feminism.
Might not be as rare, but still. I know a lot of women who espouse feminist values and all, but somehow shy away from being called a feminist. Makes no sense, but maybe they don't think it's good to be called feminist, regardless of interpretation?
Issues such as domestic assault, the gender gap, etc. are well-documented. Many societal problems are still overlooked, however, and cut across both genders. For girls, consider girls' bullying. Often times, girls are bullied by other girls, and it's hard to catch because of how it's done. In the workplace, bullying always isn't perpetrated by the male colleague, but is often female-on-female. For the LGBT community, consider domestic assault. Rates of domestic assault are possibly higher for same-sex couples than they are for heterosexuals. Men have many problems that are well-documented, but not well publicized. Men often die younger than women. Men tend to have higher rates of substance abuse and die from overdoses. About a quarter of all nonfatal domestic violence incidents occur to men. About 40% of the victims of severe physical violence are men. On psychological aggression from an intimate partner, the CDC found both genders are almost 50/50 with each another. So on and so forth. Problems with the sexes can't be viewed in black-and-white terms. Issues for men and women must be solved by examining the bigger picture.
which most feminists aim to do. Solve issues for men and women and make things more equal. They don't want men who report rape to be laughed off or ignored any more than they want the same for women.
Societal problems can also influenced by environmental pollution. Gasoline lead may explain as much as 90% of the rise and fall of violent crime over the past half century. This is relevant because the increase in crime helped fuel mass incarceration, and while incarceration rates for men are falling, incarceration rates for women are going up. One issue that ought to concern feminists is the rate of women with severe mental illness are being jailed up. In that article I have linked, it highlights how about 1/3 of all women in jail have a serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or major depression – more than twice the rate that exists for jailed men and about six times that of women in the general public. Are prisons always appropriate for such individuals? Certainly not.
Yes. Prior to the ACA, insurers often didn't cover women-related health items like birth control and were charged more than men, even if the level of coverage was the same. You could even be denied coverage for "pre-existing conditions" such as domestic assault and pregnancy. On top of that, dealing with ignoramuses is a constant headache for medical providers because many policymakers are clueless by the fact many women take birth control for health reasons, like having issues with their reproductive system.
I'm pro-equality, even if that day will never come I believe both men and women will always be on the same stature. I dislike though whenever I see men or women feminists randomly collide your opinion as a sexist statement, when you're just being factual. There are some known feminists groups where I live and they do a lot activites around the city, Pride (LGBT march downtown) is something that they sponser or host, this kind of stuff is great to see for all those involved, but on the flip side I've seen riots from them like any other group so sometimes I feel their methods can get out of hand. This is my personal opinion that it truly feels and seems like being labeled a "feminist" is more coined to be derogatory than a positive term. You can be pro-women and not a feminist but it doesn't seem like it works the other way around.
