Feminism Thread

[archibaldcrane]

Just remember:

The new law doesn't change the criminal liability of a college student who is charged with rape or what happens when a student goes to the police to report a sexual assault. It only dictates how sexual assault claims are handled internally at California colleges and universities that accept state money for financial aid (which is just about all of them).

This isn't about criminal penalties - it's about whether a school can discipline a student for sexual assault.

The "legal system" isn't being "weaponized" here.

[Eurell]

Just remember:



This isn't about criminal penalties - it's about whether a school can discipline a student for sexual assault.

Even one they didn't commit! Progress!

[Priran]

Just remember:



This isn't about criminal penalties - it's about whether a school can discipline a student for sexual assault.

The "legal system" isn't being "weaponized" here.

Right because you can still have a life after you're expelled for a frivolous rape accusation. We live in such a rape culture that there's very little power behind the stigma of rape, and people are exceedingly likely to give a rapist found culpable enough to be kicked out of school a platform to explain how the court was rigged against him and the accusation was bunk to begin with. People love to acknowledge that their legal system railroads people.

[archibaldcrane]

Me clarifying what the "yes means yes" bill is does not require your rant.

I just don't want this discussion to be about what it is not about.

[tyven]

pretty good if you can make it through the shitty fucking intro

[archibaldcrane]

If you want to rape sober people at UC schools, you just have to make sure that your lie is "she was totally into it, telling me to go harder, taking off her own clothes and then mine, her consent was clear!" and make sure it's your word against hers.

On the other hand, if you want to fuck drunk people as a UC student, you're probably going to have a bad time.

[Priran]

Me clarifying what the "yes means yes" bill is does not require your rant.

I just don't want this discussion to be about what it is not about.

Ok, to more specifically address your point: Just because this law does not affect how these things are dealt with by the state does not mean that it is not weaponizing the legal system. It is still a law made by the state which undermines two different constitutional amendments to punitively advance a political cause.

[archibaldcrane]

Well, and to improve public safety. Don't forget about that part. Rape prevention isn't really a "political cause".

[thetruepandagod]

pretty good if you can make it through the shitty fucking intro

God damn this patriarchy of ours, damn it to hell.

[hey]

Well, and to improve public safety. Don't forget about that part. Rape prevention isn't really a "political cause".

Damn you liberals always trying to prevent rape!

[Priran]

Well, and to improve public safety. Don't forget about that part. Rape prevention isn't really a "political cause".

Right. Because rape was legal before this bill passed.

"It's not about politics! It's about public safety! Lots of people think there's a risk so there must be!"

[hey]

No, it was illegal before, it simply was unenforced.

[NynJa]

Yup
0 rapists in jail

[Priran]

No, it was illegal before, it simply was unenforced.

[NynJa]

It gets to court and the judge looks at the charge and says "rape? haha, thats a good one, youre free to go, we cant clog our jails for such petty crimes"

[Priran]

this bill also changed the official title of the person who presides over a court hearing to "judge" from "patriarch"

[kuronosan]

See, my confusion lies thus:

If I believe in equal rights, but don't identify as a feminist, I'm told I'm misogynistic and not actually for equality.

Anyone who doesn't agree with some of the more radical ideals of feminism must also be misogynistic.

If I believe in a humanistic approach that advocates equality for all while simultaneously acknowledging the individual social problems that exist (racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, etc), then I must also be misogynistic.

This is what I don't understand. I have no cultural or gender-blinders on. I acknowledge that sexism exists, but I believe that social change has to come in intervals and without labeling one social problem as more important than another. For example, racism is more rampant than sexism in some cases, yet both permeate society.

Why should feminism be a more dominant movement?

[hey]

See, my confusion lies thus:

If I believe in equal rights, but don't identify as a feminist, I'm told I'm misogynistic and not actually for equality.

Anyone who doesn't agree with some of the more radical ideals of feminism must also be misogynistic.

If I believe in a humanistic approach that advocates equality for all while simultaneously acknowledging the individual social problems that exist (racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, etc), then I must also be misogynistic.

This is what I don't understand. I have no cultural or gender-blinders on. I acknowledge that sexism exists, but I believe that social change has to come in intervals and without labeling one social problem as more important than another. For example, racism is more rampant than sexism in some cases, yet both permeate society.

Why should feminism be a more dominant movement?

According to who? Because most feminists don't think any of this.

[BaneTheBrawler]

maz does

[Priran]

According to who? Because most feminists don't think any of this.

oh that explains why when a 2nd wave feminist like christina hoff sommers says that feminism is getting derailed by identity politics she gets called a radical right-wing anti-feminist.