Feminism

[goat starer]

One of the things I react the most against is the way many rape victims get treated in court, their sexual moral and history gets scrutinized in a very demeaning way

that is spot on. it can only be very rarely that the sexual history is even remotely relevant. It is not a case of "hey you have slept with a lot of men so everyone can have a go!".

And how do you define the line between a perfectly natural inequality and a socially constructed one?

that is a good question. Maternity leave is a really interesting example. I have a friend who runs a charity. She recently appointed 6 new staff. after less than a month three of them announced they were pregnant. She now has to pay maternity pay and backfill the roles. There is no funding (she is funded through national regeneration money) available to do this - what does she do? If she does nothing then the charities beneficiaries suffer because 1/3 of the workforce is not there. She can't simply decide to let these people go because of equalities legislation - but at the end of the day it was their choice to have children whilst also choosing to pursue their careers. I think it is a fairly legitimate question to ask why everyone else is expected to pick up the salary costs of three people just because they have chosen to increase the overpopulation of the world - with the added cost that three jobs they should be doing for us are now vacant pending their return to work. The funding she recieves is contingent on meeting specified outputs. This is reliant on having the people to do the work!

this is a vexed question. One answer leads you to a point where women of childbearing age are discriminated against in the workplace... the other leads you to a chronic issue for her organisation. I don't pretend to know the answer.

[Griffin NoName]

I would have put money on them having originally appeared somwhere during a football competition... probably Euro 2008 qualifiers. They have a definate 'loaded' ('mens' magazine in the UK with boobs and cars and drinking) feel to me. But I may be wrong.

I believe if it was "loaded" for men it would not have the kind of upper garment which is touted widely as suitable for extra solid support for prostheses   However, if it achieves the feeling for you..... perhaps it reflects your acceptance that women may have compromised boobs ? 

Darlica has made me realise how much I hate the term feminism.

One quick note regarding a backlash, similar to what happens with environmentalism becomes radical: the most recalcitrant voices tend to hurt the movement they claim to spouse.

I would say that sadly the term 'feminism' has been associated with the extreme feminism. As usual, moderate voices tend to get less attention and now it has become an excuse from the chauvinists to shun the whole thing.  Also there is a significant female chauvinism, which has grown precisely because of the extreme statements made by some self proclaimed feminists.

Personally, I believe anyone who has issues with the word "feminism" simply reflects how far beyond a backlash we have gone. We had reached a point where the majority of people understood it as a general movement.

Adjectives like "seperatist" were normally understood. Back to adjectives school !! (and re-read Darlica's post) 

Extremists exist in al "sectors" of society. Of course, they exist within the Feminist Movement. They are a minority - or they certainly were by the time we reached post-feminism. If they are no longer, it confirms the need for this topic !

Women should have equal rights - they should also have equal responsibilities you cant have one without the other.

here is one of them...

The responsibility to excersise judgement on issues relating to wonen as stringently as you would expect it to be excercised in other cases. an example?.... not everyone who claims to have been raped is telling the truth. believe me. Deciding you made a mistake the following morning and being raped are not interchangeable descriptions of the same thing. It is a very easy accusation to level when pissed off and a difficult one to retract. Many 'feminists' seem to want a presumption of guilt built into the law... well thats not how the law works and attitudes like that do no favours to people who are arguing that rape should be better investigated and made a priority for police forces. If you think there is an attitude of "she was asking for it" in society then there is certainly the counterpart "he's guilty as hell" attitude whenever anyone is accused of rape.

And what is the percentage of false accusations?  If there was justist for rape, perhaps we would know.

Goat, this is exactly one of the arguments used to prevent rape trials becoming "Just" and actual rapes from being taken foward for prosecution. It is no kind of argument for leaving rape as a crime that is virtually always got away with. Please please please read the facts on rape figures in the UK and the impossibilities built into the reporting and prosecutions systems. Take notice of the number of prosecutions that fail despite the defender having been reported or prosecuted for rape many times. It really is shocking.

"There is nothing wrong with staying at home raising kids"

Nothing wrong at all, if that's what a parent wishes to do. Except for not having any money; so how should the state fund this, sick pay, national insurance, and including pensions?

Maternity leave is a really interesting example..........
this is a vexed question. One answer leads you to a point where women of childbearing age are discriminated against in the workplace... the other leads you to a chronic issue for her organisation. I don't pretend to know the answer.

State funding to the employer would enable them cover the leave financially but I don't know how a stand-in would be up to speed on the particular job, so I don't have the full solution.

If the state fully funded child rearing, perhaps Feminism would become redundant in many areas. 

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

This will put me in the camp of feminists light, because feminism isn't one movement there are more schools of it than I can count, but to to a harsh generalisation there are three fields: Anarcha-feminism, Traditional and feminism light) feminism and Difference feminism (uterus feminism). Light in this context doesn't mean that I take the issue lightly, on the contrary, I just believe that women above being women are individuals, not a homogenized group, which many feminist as well as non-feminists tend to claim and that all individuals no matter gender should have the same rights and opportunities.

I believe the same, and I've always heard it called contemporary feminism (not to be pedantic!).

Movies
Oh, really, Juno is an example of the backlash against feminism? Oh, wow, yeah, I see: A girl gets pregnant, has the opportunity to get an abortion but makes a decision not to, has complete control over her reproductive rights from beginning to end, makes her way through the ordeal successfully almost entirely unsupported, and still has room in her heart for forgivness. Prime example of misogyny, all that.

I haven't seen Juno but from what I have heard about it criticizing it like this just seems stupid. I mean it's a movie made for an older audience, one that hopefully can make up their own mind about things,...

You really should--awesome movie. And definitely not a backlash. She doesn't turn away from the abortion clinic because someone tells her her baby has fingernails, but because she chooses to when the waiting room drives her up a tree.

...personally I'm much more worried about the movies made for a younger more susceptible audience. My favourite albeit old examples are movies like Pocahontas (I may have spelled it wrong) and those where the young heroine first is shown of as nerdy, somewhat ugly and not popular at all but then by some reason she (either she gets to know that she is actually a princess or she gets conned to change for a boy)  gets a makeover and then becomes popular and gets the boy...

I watched all those movies as a little girl--loved Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, all of the old ones.
My mother had a good remedy for the insidiousness of those ideas in our culture--she always said, "Don't change for a boy and don't expect him to change for you--it doesn't work that way. A woman doesn't need a man anymore than he needs a woman."
I certainly took that to heart.
Although I note that I can't think of any of that in Pocahontas--that was a 90s movie and throughly PC (though she chooses to cave him and leave her people, as I recall).

And my answer to Zono: I agree. Go for it, if you want. I'm not going to look down on you for it at all.
My step-father, actually, is the one who stays at home. He's ferried us around for years--took me to early morning debate tournaments, my sisters to their events, made our lunches and so on.

[Griffin NoName]

Research published a couple of weeks ago said that in lab tests the three qualities that women are most immediately attracted to are deviousness, narcissism and the impulsive behaviour of the psychopath. So honest, humble and restrained men aint going to get a look in... bad luck my toadfish buddies!

so whatever evolutionary quirk made awful men attractive to women perpetuates awful behaviour by men. To succeed (at least at getting laid) being thoroughly unpleasant seems to be the best strategy.

Been trying to resolve this one for years !

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

With regards to rape.

Unfortunately, here in the USofA we have an adversarial court system that is not actually interested in the truth, but deliberately set up as "win/loose".

Because of that bias, both sides of any criminal cases go after every trick in the book-- regardless of the actual facts in the case.

If a jury is involved (as it often is), then human "judgment" and emotions come into play as well--- is why the "defense" goes after the accuser like they do-- all they have to do is convince one juror that the woman is "out to get men" and you have a misstrial.

To me-- the adversarial court system MUST be done away with, and use the military model of courts (No-- not that Idiot Bush's gitmo debacle.  The traditional military court system).

It that system, the truth is paramount above all else. 

Our civil courts ought to be mandated by law, that seeking the truth/facts is the only thing the court is interested.  Emotional arguments?  Out-- not allowed. 

What we really need is unemotional robots for the Jury.  Then let a human be the Judge, and he/she can exercise clemency or mercy if that seems appropriate.

"Just the facts, ma'm" ought to be the Prime Goal-- but it never really is.

Thus you have with rape, the accuser being literally raked over the coals....

[Griffin NoName]

I've been watching a nice bit of TV drama called Criminal Justice this week...... the trial ends tomorrow..... (it's murder not rape although rape may have occured too)....... in the UK it's "beyond reasonable doubt" -

I don't think I'd be much good on a jury as I'd be wondering if observing the evidence had changed it so there would always be doubt

I also just watched a documentary on Dr Crippen who was hanged for murdering his wife in 1910 - guilt proved "beyond reasonable doubt" by newfangled "forensic" evidence. They have re-evaluated all the evidence and turns out the body was male, wasn't his wife, some of the evidence was almost certainly planted, and the chap never done it. He was an American and the family are asking for a pardon from Britain and his body exhumed from Pentonville prison so they can fly him home and bury him in the family plot. 

Slightly off-topic.

[Sibling Chatty]

Zono, I'm not going back for the sentence...but my response?

"Good choice, I'm glad you're able TO choose to do so, especially in an economy where choosing to do so would financially sink so many families."

Feminism in the non-extremist area (and the extremes make the noise, we know) is about being ABLE to choose.

The same greedy SOBs that have destroyed the world economy so that even in the "wealthy" countries it takes 2 incomes to provide a decent life are the selfsame SOB's that decry the loss of the stay at home Mom. They seem to forget stuff like that when it comes to screwing the economy to give them more and more and their employees less and less.

[beagle]

If a jury is involved (as it often is), then human "judgment" and emotions come into play as well...

Don't see that as at all a bad thing in the general case. Also, having a jury involved is an essential safeguard as Churchill pointed out.

"As long as a case has to be scrutinised by twelve honest men, defendant and plaintiff alike have a safeguard from arbitrary perversion of the law. Old principles had been preserved and endure to this day, that law flows from the people, and is not given by the King. "

Churchill also pointed out it is the job of the jury to act as another safeguard, by refusing to convict on an unjust law (whether it was intended to be unjust, or the result of legislators bungling the  definition of the statute).

To me-- the adversarial court system MUST be done away with, and use the military model of courts (No-- not that Idiot Bush's gitmo debacle.  The traditional military court system).

And what's to stop the one sliding into the other onshore, with no jury to set the limit as to who can be arbitrarily locked up?
If the executive fixes a case against it by choosing the judge carefully what are you going to do? Bring a legal case?

Don't entirely agree, as you've doubtless spotted

[goat starer]

And what is the percentage of false accusations?  If there was justist for rape, perhaps we would know.

Goat, this is exactly one of the arguments used to prevent rape trials becoming "Just" and actual rapes from being taken foward for prosecution. It is no kind of argument for leaving rape as a crime that is virtually always got away with. Please please please read the facts on rape figures in the UK and the impossibilities built into the reporting and prosecutions systems. Take notice of the number of prosecutions that fail despite the defender having been reported or prosecuted for rape many times. It really is shocking.

I entirely accept that the percentage of false accusations may be small. i know how badly rape is investigated and how few successful prosecutions there are - but it is a good principle of british law that people (except terrorists and immigrants  ) are considered innocent until proven guilty. I thought I had made it clear that I want better investigation of rape with more prosecutions. But I want the right ones... I firmly believe that in all crimes it is better for the guilty to walk free than for the innocent to be locked up. This is about burdens of proof and rape is a VERY hard crime to prove. reporting and giving evidence are both made into dreadful experiences for victims but I don't see a solution here. A 'presumption of guilt' type of attitude just makes the thing skewed in the other direction and open to abuse for anyone with a grudge and a nasty streak.

I have seen no suggestions from feminists or anyone else that overcomes the problem without creating equally grave miscarriages of justice.

Furthermore one of the ways that more trials might be successful is taking into account the accused sexual history... but as darlica rightly points out taking into account the victims sexual history is repregensible and, put simply, the law is not something where you can have your cake and eat it (or something to be trifled with) - I am getting hungry just writing this!

[Griffin NoName]

Sorry Goat, was slightly puzzled. Must have misunderstood.

If a jury is involved (as it often is), then human "judgment" and emotions come into play as well...

Don't see that as at all a bad thing in the general case. Also, having a jury involved is an essential safeguard as Churchill pointed out.

"As long as a case has to be scrutinised by twelve honest men, defendant and plaintiff alike have a safeguard from arbitrary perversion of the law. Old principles had been preserved and endure to this day, that law flows from the people, and is not given by the King. "

Churchill also pointed out it is the job of the jury to act as another safeguard, by refusing to convict on an unjust law (whether it was intended to be unjust, or the result of legislators bungling the  definition of the statute).

Didn't King John (or was it Henry II) try to scupper the jury system?  It's been around a long time anyway.

Concerning "refusing to convict on an unjust law" - a good thing, but how often are the directed to consider this by the Judge?

We have some very ancient Judges who make some very odd statements. I always understood a Judge is assumed to enshrine all that is appropriate for the society, as a whole.

Anyway, time to watch "Criminal Justice" drama on TV

[beagle]

Think H2 was one of the good guys, the verdict is a bit more mixed about KJ.

We have some very ancient Judges who make some very odd statements. I always understood a Judge is assumed to enshrine all that is appropriate for the society, as a whole.

Mmmmkay and Mmmkay.

[Griffin NoName]

A 'presumption of guilt' type of attitude just makes the thing skewed in the other direction and open to abuse for anyone with a grudge and a nasty streak.

I have seen no suggestions from feminists or  else that overcomes the problem without creating equally grave miscarriages of justice.

I accept everything you have said.

I've never come across "presumption of guilt" or any other suggestion that would tend towards miscariiage of justice on any feminist agenda for improving number of rape convictions where the defendent is guilty, so I was a bit perplexed.

Indeed, locking up the wrong person has other consequences than injustice - the perpetrator is still at large and a threat.

Because nobody has solved this area of "criminality" is all the more reason for it to be high on the agenda but I don't have any answers either..... CCTV embedded in our eyeballs (or elsewhere ) ?

Think H2 was one of the good guys, the verdict is a bit more mixed about KJ.

Woops, of course, it was Henry II who introduced the ""twelve lawful men" system for the Assizes (as opposed to trial by ordeal and trial by combat).

Incidentally, according to wiki, trial by combat was still legal in England until 1819. I am glad at least that has been abolished as an official method even if it still alive and well on our streets.

As for John, see Reconstructing Justice: An Agenda for Trial Reform, 1994, Franklin D. Strier, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 109, Henry's battle with the barons..... I think it was KJ who I was thinking of (bu note the  extract from this book fails to include the part the Pope et al played in Magna Carta, and a lot of other skullduggery).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I've seen statistics saying that most rapes aren't reported and most importantly, in most cases the victim knows the rapist who is frequently part of the family. It would be interesting to know the statistics of the remainder (aka the stereotypical rape) and check how often is misrepresented (likely a minority although knowing the percentage would be nice).
-----
Re: stay @ home to raise kids. I guess I didn't explain well my intention with the question. The thing is that my 1st reaction to such statement is one of suspicion; yes, stay at home is a perfectly valid option but as Chatty pointed out is a choice (now) not an obligation (as it used to be) therefore what's the point saying it?

BTW Kana, I don't mind staying at home, right now in a way I am (I telecommute 4 days of the week and my son is on his summer vacation) but the times I've been unemployed I've felt that I lost my independence because I wasn't contributing economically. Perhaps is because I'm a male but my first reaction is that if I were a woman I would feel the same. 

[beagle]

As for John, see Reconstructing Justice: An Agenda for Trial Reform, 1994, Franklin D. Strier, Greenwood Publishing Group, p. 109, Henry's battle with the barons..... I think it was KJ who I was thinking of (bu note the  extract from this book fails to include the part the Pope et al played in Magna Carta, and a lot of other skullduggery).

Don't know that one.  I have J.C.Holt's "Magna Carta" (a case of supporting the local team).
One of those nice ironies of history I feel, that a key contract of English liberties was actually an invalid contract as it was signed under duress.

[goat starer]

CCTV embedded in our eyeballs (or elsewhere ) ?

ouch!

it is about time scientists made a lie detector that actually works. this might remove the need for BALLSTV^TM