America’s New Sex Bureaucracy • Hacker News Board

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#91

Post by rubbingalcohol » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 1:17 AM UTC

fromthestart wrote: post #77

The fact that this revelation could only be communicated by women, and even then not without consternation, is evidence of the successful weaponization of victimhood by modern intersectional feministism. This is a symptom of a greater degeneracy in academia, driven primarily by progressive activism, wherin objectivity of argument evaluation is presumed to be impossible, and superseded by value judgements based on fee…

> simply for being disadvantaged

I think that's being generous. A lot of the academics screaming the loudest for blood come from very privileged backgrounds, regardless of gender, ethnicity, etc.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#92

Post by wonderwonder » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 1:18 AM UTC

drewrv wrote: post #30

mieseratte wrote: post #4

For the life of me I don’t understand why government funded institutions run their own tribunals. Send it through the proper court system, if the accused is guilty you can expel them cleanly.

Ideally that makes sense to me, but unfortunately courts take a long of time and don't always pursue cases thoroughly. Given that reality, I don't know how an institution is supposed to handle the following scenario without their own tribunal system: Student A and Student B have a class together. Their dorms are next door to each other. Student A rapes Student B. Is Student B expected to attend class every day with t…

Your scenario fails to consider the main thrust of the article.

Student A and B have consensual sex and then student B regrets it and claims student A raped her. Student A is now considered guilty from the onset and is banned from attending class and given no opportunity to read the charges against him or to refute his accuser.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#93

Post by klipt » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 1:18 AM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #62

rayiner wrote: post #38

Meh. This is the second sexual revolution. The first go around resulted in rules and around causal sex in college that favor men and encode male expectations. Women are making clear that those rules don’t work for them and are demanding a change. If you don’t push the line on consent you have nothing to worry about.

I get what you're saying. But the "second sexual revolution" actually happened in the 80s-90s. I remember it distinctly. You always paused, and clearly asked, at each stage. But this is different. Now there is no such thing as "consent". Or rather, consent can be withdrawn retroactively . I've never been accused of rape, as far as I know. But many years ago, one girlfriend told me that she had thought I was wealthy.…

One way to prevent these things from going too far is to make the standards gender neutral. If men start accusing women of rape by trickery too, I imagine feminists will very quickly back down.

The main problem is when it's all in one direction: when people think that defining more things as rape makes them more feminist, more supportive of women, and more deserving of social brownie points, then they have incentive to keep going well beyond the borders of common sense.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#94

Post by rubbingalcohol » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 1:21 AM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #56

> It is a story with which the rise of Donald Trump is fatally intertwined, but it is in fact a story that takes precedence—both temporal and logical—over the anarchic and pathological rise of the demagogue occupying the White House. All of the elements of this story were in full flower during the Obama administration. Trump's role has been to politically capitalize on the resulting resentments. This is a "this is ho…

That's literally where I closed the article. Up to that point it had been informative and somewhat convincingly written, despite the author taking too much effort to paint his subjects as paragons of fairness and logic.

But he just couldn't resist the urge to pepper a "Drumpf is a Nazi" in there. It's unnecessary to the thesis and undermines his point.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#95

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 1:22 AM UTC

throwaway2048 wrote: post #82

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government is imposing penalties for criminal behavior. Classifying that as "civil" is a farce.

You can be sued in civil court for criminal actions.

You can be sued in civil court for money. You're not held in prison or kicked out of school by government fiat in the meantime. And the damages (if any) are imposed after the court proceeding.

The exceptions are related to things like civil asset forfeiture, which are of questionable constitutionality and are similar to the rules we're discussing insofar as they are both worthy of contempt.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#96

Post by rubbingalcohol » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 1:25 AM UTC

Fellshard wrote: post #88

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate how it follows that the judicial institutions themselves would be reinforcing 'rape culture' in your example? Wouldn't it be more plausible that factors external to the judicial systems might be to blame?

The reasoning being, 'if we let the external systems deal with it, they would not judge rightly by our standards.' If they believed it would judge rightly, they would have no reason to institute their own.

I don't think that follows. A civil court would not typically rule that a defendant who was found liable by a preponderance of evidence should be expelled from their academic programs. A criminal court less so. These systems are not equipped to handle the specific remedies that an academic disciplinary program should be designed around providing.

Zooming out a bit, I don't think the civil/criminal courts failure to be suitable for handling an academic complaint constitutes a reinforcement of rape culture or anything else. That's akin to saying "by not doing something about [some injustice] you're complicit" which is not necessarily true.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#97

Post by throwaway2048 » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 1:29 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #95

throwaway2048 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be sued in civil court for criminal actions.

You can be sued in civil court for money. You're not held in prison or kicked out of school by government fiat in the meantime. And the damages (if any) are imposed after the court proceeding. The exceptions are related to things like civil asset forfeiture, which are of questionable constitutionality and are similar to the rules we're discussing insofar as they are both worthy of contempt.

A university tribunal is not government fiat, and a civil court has more power than simply issuing fines.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#98

Post by wonderwonder » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 1:30 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #38

Meh. This is the second sexual revolution. The first go around resulted in rules and around causal sex in college that favor men and encode male expectations. Women are making clear that those rules don’t work for them and are demanding a change. If you don’t push the line on consent you have nothing to worry about.

What is the line of consent? In essence any action you take would require you ask for verbal consent. Can I kiss you, can I hug you, can I take your shirt off, can I touch your ... etc. In addition this would not change after the first consensual encounter, it would have to occur for every subsequent encounter potentially for years. If it does not at any time one of the participants could claim they did not consent to the particular act, claim rape and per the rules in place be immediately believed and have their sexual partner suspended / expelled for not getting consent / rape.

I am not negating the fact that rape is a serious offense and likely occurs with great frequency but we must always balance the rights of the accused and the accuser with legal process. Innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of our justice system and without it we may as well revert to having a counsel of biased tribal elders decide guilt and punishment.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#99

Post by blotter_paper » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 1:31 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #59

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #3

>But after a lifetime in service of the feminist cause, she took on the case of a friend whose son she came to believe had been wrongly convicted of rape and won his acquittal on appeal. This is one of the big ways in which sexism is a much more tractable problem than racism and less potentially explosive. Women and men both have members of the opposite sex that they genuinely love. I have heard that fathers with dau…

How would bias toward gay people fit in with that? A lot of people don't know (or at least aren't aware that they know) anyone gay, but bias toward gay people has dramatically fallen over the last couple of decades. There was a recent episode of "Hidden Brain" on NPR that talked about this [1]. This part is particularly interesting: > In a thought experiment, Mahzarin and her colleagues have extended the trend lines…

>Most families include the elderly and the overweight, so the idea that familiarity breeds acceptance would predict that those biases should be going away quicker than biases against gays.

What I'm about to say is not meant to provide a justification for discriminatory behavior, it's just an armchair-anthropologist's attempt at explaining this discrepancy. We might have a very deep bias against old people; if a group of animals has to decide who gets a split of food, and some of them have a dramtically shorter life expectancy, I could imagine there being a biological tendency to care about the young over the old. A similar calculation might be made about the disabled, since a wounded companion is less helpful than an able-bodied one. Weight, I have a number of ideas about. There's a disease correlation, of course. We also might ostracize overweight people because overweight people were more likely to be hoarding food in our deep past, and sharing with those who don't share back is a bad strategy. Even if the specifics of my armchair-anthropology are utter horseshit, I could see factors similar to these out-weighing the familiarity bias without discounting it.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#100

Post by mirimir » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 1:34 AM UTC

klipt wrote: post #93

mirimir wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying. But the "second sexual revolution" actually happened in the 80s-90s. I remember it distinctly. You always paused, and clearly asked, at each stage. But this is different. Now there is no such thing as "consent". Or rather, consent can be withdrawn retroactively . I've never been accused of rape, as far as I know. But many years ago, one girlfriend told me that she had thought I was wealthy.…

One way to prevent these things from going too far is to make the standards gender neutral. If men start accusing women of rape by trickery too, I imagine feminists will very quickly back down. The main problem is when it's all in one direction: when people think that defining more things as rape makes them more feminist, more supportive of women, and more deserving of social brownie points, then they have incentive…

I don't have any direct (or indirect) experience. So what happens now if a man accuses a woman of "raping" him? I'm guessing that he'd be ignored. And I don't think the standards will become gender-neutral any faster than they'll become just.

I do wonder, though, whether young men are becoming more cautious about who they have sex with. And if there's any way to protect oneself against future rape accusations. Perhaps some sort of witnessed contractual agreement? Maybe something like Islamic "temporary marriage"? With penalties for changing ones mind later.

Edit: Another thread cites an article about a guy who, paranoid after a "drunken hookup", filed a Title IX complaint.[0] So maybe that's the workable strategy. Have sex, and then be first to file. And research the process ahead of time, so there's no delay.

0) https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/title-ix-i...