Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

tabletmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 387 posts

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#161

Post by jessaustin »

klipt wrote: post #78
drewrv wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What if Student A and Student B both get drunk and have sex. The next day they both feel they were raped. Which one do you expel? Currently the de facto assumption is whoever files a Title IX report first is the victim and whoever files second is the rapist. I'm sure you can see how this system can be abused: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/title-ix-i...

This is an easy determination in a case of heterosex: the male is the rapist and the female is the victim. Other cases could be more difficult.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#162

Post by rayiner »

mirimir wrote: post #144
gm678 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you show me an example of modern feminists trying to suggest that consent can be withdrawn retroactively? I find your argument that people can now be credibly accused of rape because their partner misjudged their wealth to be unrealistic and in bad faith, and I have not seen any evidence for it.

From TFA, which I quoted in another subthread: > As Catharine Mackinnon, the progenitor of the school of feminism from which this movement proceeds, once put it, "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." Maybe she's not a "modern feminist". But that's the sense I get from TFA about current policies.

MacKinnon's quote is not referring to an after-the-fact change of mind. Her point is that women may, under coercive circumstances, consent but nonetheless still feel violated. She posits that women may revoke consent after the fact, but the basis for that revocation is coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act.

This is less far-fetched than it may seem at first. Many people on HN would agree with the proposition that an arbitration clause in an employment contract with a big company is only theoretically consensual. The concept of "wage slavery" is widely accepted on HN as well. The basis of these ideas is that people may "consent" to something but that is not the same thing as welcoming the thing. In the sexual context, few people would disagree that, for example, someone cannot "consent" to sex with a prison guard or an arresting police officer. What about economic or social coercion? What does consent mean in cultures where women have no way to support themselves or any social standing outside a relationship with a man?

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#163

Post by [deleted] »

awb wrote: post #159
blotter_paper wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

The bias against overweight people is probably less about them hoarding and more about them being unhealthy. We probably have a bias against unhealthy people because they'd drain the time and resources of a tribe. And they'd be less likely to help with physical activities like hunting, gathering and war. Obesity is a very new phenomenon but not wanting to include or associate with people who seem sick or unhealthy is…

[deleted]

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#164

Post by [deleted] »

jessaustin wrote: post #161
klipt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if Student A and Student B both get drunk and have sex. The next day they both feel they were raped. Which one do you expel? Currently the de facto assumption is whoever files a Title IX report first is the victim and whoever files second is the rapist. I'm sure you can see how this system can be abused: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/title-ix-i...

This is an easy determination in a case of heterosex: the male is the rapist and the female is the victim. Other cases could be more difficult.

[deleted]

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#165

Post by closeparen »

klipt wrote: post #75
Lazare wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I run a startup, and one of my employees is making other employees uncomfortable, and he keeps getting accused of harassing other employees, and is generally just making some of my best engineers unhappy, hurting productivity, and ruining our carefully constructed culture... ...I can fire him. I mean, obviously I need to go through the proper HR procedures, follow local employment law, respect the terms of his con…

In the workplace dating coworkers is generally frowned upon. At a university, dating other students is so commonplace that a large portion of people meet their spouses that way. Title IX may want to treat dating at universities with the same disdain as in the workplace, but it's not going to be an easy cultural shift.

Not sure about the validity of the poll, but by at least one indication 15% of couples meet at work vs. 6% at school.

https://www.reportlinker.com/insight/finding-love-online.htm...

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#166

Post by mirimir »

rayiner wrote: post #162
mirimir wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From TFA, which I quoted in another subthread: > As Catharine Mackinnon, the progenitor of the school of feminism from which this movement proceeds, once put it, "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." Maybe she's not a "modern feminist". But that's the sense I get from TFA about current policies.

MacKinnon's quote is not referring to an after-the-fact change of mind. Her point is that women may, under coercive circumstances, consent but nonetheless still feel violated. She posits that women may revoke consent after the fact, but the basis for that revocation is coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act . This is less far-fetched than it may seem at first. Many people on HN would agree with th…

OK. But TFA does push the interpretation that it's about retroactive change of mind.

I get what you say about "coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act." However, the following paragraph isn't at all reassuring. I mean, there may well be circumstances that pressure someone into having sex. But if their sexual partner isn't personally responsible for those circumstances, why should they suffer?

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#167

Post by DoreenMichele »

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…

I have heard that fathers with daughters make for a very tough jury in rape cases.

Generally speaking, if you want to nail a rapist to the wall, you should fill it with middle aged men, whether they have children or not, and actively avoid women.

Middle aged men remember what Randy jerks they were capable of being. Even if they have no daughters, they have mothers, sisters, wives or girlfriends and they want their women protected.

Women will say to themselves "I wouldn't have worn that outfit/gone to that bar/been in that part of town after dark." Women will try to convince themselves it was somehow the victim's fault so they can feel safe and in control of their lives.

Or so I've read.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#168

Post by dgzl »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #155
dgzl wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A whole lot of this BS is rooted in the idea that a woman's sexuality is a prize to be won by an "eligible" male -- ie a man who earns enough to take care of her. There is a subtext of ownership there. Both sides perpetuate this, but I see this coming from women much more than men.

Perhaps that's because most women need a man's income to not be dirt poor. I appear to be the highest ranked woman on HN. I appear to be the only woman to ever have spent time on the leader board. It has resulted in nearly zero professional connections. When I complain about that, I get blown off and told that's not something I should expect from HN, nevermind that it works that way for plenty of men. I was homeless…

... so you say that "A whole lot of this BS is rooted in the idea that a woman's sexuality is a prize to be won by ... a man who earns enough to take care of her," and you'll entertain the idea that it comes from women more than men, but you want to justify it by saying "women need a man's income to not be dirt poor."

Do you realize how poor of an argument that is? Even reading "most women need men's income" as a legitimate statement just makes me cringe.

I really hope you don't carry this attitude and entitlement to your job perspectives, because I wouldn't want to imagine that you're missing such a glaring red flag.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#169

Post by asveikau »

dgzl wrote: post #168
DoreenMichele wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps that's because most women need a man's income to not be dirt poor. I appear to be the highest ranked woman on HN. I appear to be the only woman to ever have spent time on the leader board. It has resulted in nearly zero professional connections. When I complain about that, I get blown off and told that's not something I should expect from HN, nevermind that it works that way for plenty of men. I was homeless…

... so you say that "A whole lot of this BS is rooted in the idea that a woman's sexuality is a prize to be won by ... a man who earns enough to take care of her," and you'll entertain the idea that it comes from women more than men, but you want to justify it by saying "women need a man's income to not be dirt poor." Do you realize how poor of an argument that is? Even reading "most women need men's income" as a leg…

I don't read that as an attempt to justify at all, it's expressed as a statement of a sad reality for a lot of people, with lamentation.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#170

Post by [deleted] »

asveikau wrote: post #169
dgzl wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... so you say that "A whole lot of this BS is rooted in the idea that a woman's sexuality is a prize to be won by ... a man who earns enough to take care of her," and you'll entertain the idea that it comes from women more than men, but you want to justify it by saying "women need a man's income to not be dirt poor." Do you realize how poor of an argument that is? Even reading "most women need men's income" as a leg…

I don't read that as an attempt to justify at all, it's expressed as a statement of a sad reality for a lot of people, with lamentation.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN