1. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,146
    Likes Received:
    12,710

    Women and Consent and the Downward Slide

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by ChickenFreak, Oct 6, 2018.

    I've been wondering why we seem to have lost ground, since my youth, with communicating the whacky whacky idea that women are the primary rights-holders over their own bodies. This article is interesting. And it's really depressing to think that the 'eighties (my high school and college decade) might have been as good as it gets for women in this area.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-evangelical-women_us_5bb3a28de4b0ba8bb211985b

    Any discussion of this seems as if it will inevitably fly to debate room territory, so I may as well start there.
     
    BayView and Simpson17866 like this.
  2. John Calligan

    John Calligan Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    1,499
    Likes Received:
    1,485
    I have a theory about why so many of our leaders turn out to be rapists. I think a lot of them are psychopaths.

    Something like 1 in 100 people are psychopaths. They aren’t necessarily sadists, but they don’t feel what you feel. In business, they can walk on others to get to the top. In politics, we ask for them.

    We want people that will throw criminals in jail and protect the border and prepare for offensive war while providing a credible threat. We want men that will bomb civilians and cast millions into exile over the price of oil.

    Of that group of psychos, how many are rapists? Not sadists, but people who will take what they want without feeling the other person’s feelings?

    It seems like we want a very special kind of person to lead us: someone who will order a killing but won’t rape.

    I think it has to do with the myth that morality comes from a belief in god and a love of rules. We conflate success with honesty or honor. We don’t believe a bad person will get far. We think we can make a psychopath act the way we want by demanding they buy into some specific viewpoint.

    It’s crazy.

    So, people look at guys like the new justice and assume they are like the 99 out of 100 guys in their lives: men with empathy, and whose charm is sincere. That might not be the case.

    Forgive the cliche, but they are wolves in sheep's clothing.

    These are the issues I see:

    The way our society lifts psychopaths into positions of authority.

    The refusal to recognize the difference between having altruistic feelings naturally, and enforcing social norms with force.

    The belief that psychopaths can be given empathy by screaming at them.

    The conflation of toxic masculinity and psychopathy.

    The puritanical lumping of all bad people in one box, giving psychopaths and sadists allies in the form of the friends and family of middling scummy people.

    A lot of rape is about sex. Some rape is pushy men believing they are seducing frightened and/or drunk women. Those men might not even understand how their aggression looks like the threat of violence. For these men, being taught about consent and healthy masculinity can help. On the other hand, some rapists are psychopaths who take what they want without caring who they hurt. Some rape is done by sadists who like hurting people. These three aren’t the same and conflating them gives evil people cover.

    People try to simplify all our society's fucked up behavior by attributing it to a single spiritual, ideological, or social force, while refusing to see that some people have different natures.

    Some people believe that the men in their lives are not rapists, and want to protect them by demanding a high burden of proof, even if it means throwing other victims under the bus. If it turns out that many rapists are repeat rapists, then a small number of really evil men are doing the largest amount of damage. That's why it seems like there are so many victims, but so few people know the perpetrators.

    -- http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/05/01/campus_sexual_assault_statistics_so_many_victims_but_not_as_many_predators.html

    http://www.davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf

    -- https://www.livescience.com/7859-psychopath-answers-remain-elusive.html

    -- https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-startling-accuracy-of-referring-to-politicians-as-psychopaths/260517/

    80-20 Rule and Social Costs:
    -- https://phys.org/news/2016-12-social.html
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2018
    BayView likes this.
  3. Edward M. Grant

    Edward M. Grant Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    292
    Location:
    Canada
    Leaders tend to be people who want power over others. And mass-media democracy actively selects for people who can lie convincingly on camera... aka psychopaths.

    And it's not just politics. I remember when I worked on movies in the UK, we discussed one time how many producers seemed to get into it so they'd have the chance to shag a better class of women. Sleeping their way to the top wasn't common, but it wasn't uncommon, either.
     
  4. O.M. Hillside

    O.M. Hillside Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    445
    I'm aware this is going to be somewhat unpopular. But:

    Very, very few people believe that a woman's consent doesn't matter. And of course, anyone who thinks like that is very simply a piece of shit. But again, that is not the norm. And I don't think it's fair to say that someone who defends Kavanaugh must have some kind of underlying belief that a woman's consent doesn't matter. The truth is, if you've really been following the Kavanaugh case, there's nothing there to convict him. Ford's testimony doesn't add up. The witnesses she named could not corroborate the details she talked about. And there's just no evidence. The closest thing is the therapist's notes. But she does not name Kavanaugh specifically and she refused to release those notes to the FBI. So, I'm just not seeing anything that proves that Kavanaugh did it at all. With basic respect to principles of justice, you can't just convict someone without any evidence. It has to be innocent until proven guilty. If that's your view, I don't see how you can just assume that Kavanaugh must have done it. It's not a given. So this is a complete straw man. If someone says that they think Kavanaugh is innocent, that does not mean they somehow dismiss the concept of bodily autonomy on any level. Nobody (again, there are exceptions. For me, this is like saying nobody thinks it's okay to kill someone. Obviously some do, they're called murderers.) even questions the idea that consent is the most important thing in a sexual encounter and that women have the unalienable right to give or withhold consent. But many people question the validity of an accusation. That's the basis of justice: not assuming that someone must have done something just because someone else said they did. If we throw that out, I can accuse anyone I want of doing anything and cause them problems because I disagree with them politically, or I want to make money out of the situation, or I just want to discredit them for any reason. Most people wouldn't do that, I know. But there are enough people who would that it would be a serious problem if we look at accusations in this way.
     
  5. Foxxx

    Foxxx The Debonair Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,987
    Likes Received:
    1,797
    Location:
    United States
    "I'm an Evangelical woman, and I've appointed myself as a speaker for all Evangelical women." I would've recommended this title-change.

    The first thing she jumped to were extreme fundamentalist views. She just hop-scotched right over the multitude of other reasons why even an Evangelical might support Kavanaugh. And by the end she's extending it to other women who are presumably victims of Evangelical women imposing their beliefs on them.

    There were fundamentalist Evangelicals in the eighties. I do not understand your point.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
    O.M. Hillside likes this.
  6. SoulGalaxyWolf

    SoulGalaxyWolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    68
    Location:
    North Carolina, United States
    The article...I hated it in the sense of how cruel the story was for this writer, and how she connected this with Kavanaugh. Mrs. Gelsinger's religion wasn't kind to her, and I can't tell how abhorrent it was reading it. I think she was jumping to conclusions. It doesn't seem she asked people why they supported Kavanaugh. She just assumed from her experience, and I guess that's not entirely a bad thing, but I don't thing she was thinking through it all that well.

    I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say
    . Considering the context of the article. I understand if it's related to abortion, but not something like sexual assault. I understand how it's more..."pure"? if you save yourself for someone, or anything like that, but not what was mentioned in the article was right. I hope that me asking me this doesn't offend you at all, I don't want to misunderstand, and so I wanted to ask for some clarification if that's okay?
     
  7. BayView

    BayView Huh. Interesting. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,868
    Likes Received:
    11,695
    You're using terminology from criminal law, and it doesn't apply in this case. Kavenaugh wasn't facing criminal charges. The presumption of innocence isn't relevant, and neither is language about him being "convicted".

    He wasn't even facing a civil trial, with its very different standard of proof.

    He was in a job interview. He reacted with aggression and anger when questioned about the accusations. That alone should have shown he doesn't have the temperament for the job he was applying for.

    This is a bit of a de-rail from the main topic, of course. Kavanaugh is just one recent, high-profile example of the kind of thinking the author of the article mentions. But the article also doesn't talk about criminal law. It just talks about attitudes. And the attitudes are really, really troubling.
     
    John Calligan and ChickenFreak like this.
  8. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,146
    Likes Received:
    12,710
    I have to ask for clarification on what you're asking for clarification on.

    You know that Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault, right? I can't tell if you know that. That's why sexual assault is relevant to this conversation.
     
    John Calligan likes this.
  9. SoulGalaxyWolf

    SoulGalaxyWolf Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    68
    Location:
    North Carolina, United States
    Sorry.
    I know that Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault. I think I had misunderstood this sentence. I could see what you were saying. I just realized it when you replied. I was being an idiot.
     
    John Calligan likes this.

Share This Page