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

241–250 of 387 posts

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#241

Post by tomp »

ineedasername wrote: post #53
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.

Leaving aside the hot-button topic of sexual assault, there are plenty of sub-criminal or borderline actions that can occur that the college needs to deal with. Not all violations of a code of conduct are criminal violations. They'd much rather "sentence" an underage drinker to an alcohol education session than have all such students arrested. A lot of this is mission-driven: Schools honestly believe their role is to…

Good point, but underage drinking is a victimless crime. I’d be pretty appalled if I was raped and the only consequence would be that the rapist was expelled...

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#242

Post by mirimir »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #238
mirimir wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A family friend raped one of my nieces. She was 15 at the time, and got pregnant. This was a religious community, and the rapist was married. But another family friend, who was single, married the young woman, and they had a long and apparently happy marriage, with two more children. So I guess that it all sort of worked out. They did forgive the rapist father, and he contributed to my niece's family.

It took me twenty years to conclude that the individual who raped me honestly thought there was consent on my part. And then I was able to make my peace with it and move on. I think we desperately need to work on the societal problems that foster situations like that. Far too often, there is a crucible of social baggage involved. My takeaway: Have private relationships and don't let the world butt into them. It's har…

Sounds good to me. Maybe with some neutral expert mediaon.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#243

Post by tomp »

oijqoiwejoiqwj wrote: post #160

Unfortunately, I do not believe these ridiculous university tribunals will come to an end anytime soon. In fact, I think the problem will get much, much worse before it gets better. They are a symptom of a much larger problem. Without distracting with any specific cases, it's very clear that the modern world is shifting away from the presumption of innocence. This, combined with an internet that remembers forever and…

Thanks for your rant, very interesting viewpoint!

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#244

Post by jhbadger »

cadlin wrote: post #124
jhbadger wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that would be objectionable, and probably not even legal, unless your boss was a member of a protected class and it could be shown that what you were doing was a hate action against the class and not the individual.

You think it's literally illegal to fire someone for spitting on their boss?

The OP talked about getting fired "with no hearing". The days of bosses being absolute rulers that can just fire people instantly with a "You're fired!" isn't really true these days, even in places like the US with limited worker protection. Typically, hearings with HR are scheduled to see what and why things happened. This can result in the worker being fired, of course, but companies fear wrongful dismissal law suits that arise from bosses acting directly.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#245

Post by roenxi »

intarga wrote: post #233
roenxi wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consider how women couldn't vote in the US until 1919 -- a half century after blacks. Not letting women vote is arguably not necessarily a marker of sexism. It is more a marker of the relationship between a country's military leadership and institutions. Originally originally (~400BC) voting was basically for the army to decide when and where it would fight; hence male-only because men are the physically big ones w…

1 - I'm doubtful of your claim there was nothing to vote on except where/whether the army fights. 2 - That's irrelevant anyway unless you're suggesting that it was still the case up to 1919. 3 - Even if it was, why does women not fighting imply they can't have opinions and thoughts on when and where the army fights? For sure it still affects them.

And yet 1919 is the closing year of WWI, which as I recall was the first major war where women's labour could be deployed directly as a proactive and systematic part of the war effort on foreign soil. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no military historian.

There is a massive link between being involved in the military and having political power, even without suffrage. There are 2,500 years of history and women got the vote around the time that the repeatable firearm was perfected.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#246

Post by claudiawerner »

manfredo wrote: post #204
rayiner wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 injecting your own message into what was written. MacKinnion wrote that, "Politic…

This is a poor reading of MacKinnon; in this case, there's no need for anyone to read into the statement when you can read what else she's written. She's one of the most heavily cited feminists of all time in academic literature.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#247

Post by jamesrcole »

avar wrote: post #218
manfredo wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you are misrepresenting what was written. You are correct that, "the GP seems me to to be proposing the idea that jurors will be more fair to members of the opposite sex if they have members of that sex as part of their immediate family". It is a massive exaggeration, if not an outright fabrication, to expand this to "the notion that fathers who have daughters can't be sexist towards women" - what you wrote your…

The GP mentioned this in the context of sexism being a "tractable problem", that means it's a problem that can be solved, as opposed to an intractable problem. It can be inferred that they're proposing a mechanism by which sexism can be eradicated, not just marginally improved. Otherwise it wouldn't be a tractable problem. Perhaps I'm still misreading it, but I can't see how it can be understood differently, and how…

> The GP mentioned this in the context of sexism being a "tractable problem", that means it's a problem that can be solved, as opposed to an intractable problem.

> It can be inferred that they're proposing a mechanism by which sexism can be eradicated, not just marginally improved. Otherwise it wouldn't be a tractable problem.

Once again you're misrepresenting what they said. They said:

"This is one of the big ways in which sexism is a much more tractable problem than racism and less potentially explosive." which contradicts your claim that "they're proposing a mechanism by which sexism can be eradicated"

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#248

Post by Udik »

closeparen wrote: post #165
klipt wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The amount of couples forming at work before starting to work (i.e. while in college) is probably approaching zero.

This is to say that of course the poll at age 40 gives a very different result from the same poll at age 25.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#249

Post by belorn »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #188
dgzl wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really help you with networking, and I'm not the kind of person who thinks things like being high-ranked entitles you to something other than bragging rights. I certainly don't know enough about the blogging scene to help you there. I don't see the justification in calling HN a Boy's Club either, as there are zero barriers to participate other than a computer. That term is usually used when people exclude wom…

I don't see the justification in calling HN a Boy's Club either, as there are zero barriers to participate other than a computer. That term is usually used when people exclude women from the group because they are women, but nobody here knows or cares what sex you are. It is overwhelmingly male. There is plenty of evidence that women would like to participate more but are put off by some of what goes on here. Yes, I…

> men would like to stop being targeted by gold diggers

> When women can make their own money and can have sex to meet their own sexual needs, we might see frivolous accusations of rape to preserve female pretense of chastity and virtue go way down.

Researchers commonly test such theories by comparing countries where earnings and minimal standards are different. The common result in gender studies is the gender equality paradox, so I would expect more gold digging and false accusations in places with more equal wages.

One theory to explain that is that when gender equality goes up you also get a corresponding increase in gender expression. If everyone earn enough money on the own then men is recognized by society as men only if they earn a lot of money. It is not enough to simply have enough money.

In order to move beyond that we would need as a society to dissociate wealth with gender identity and then we are no longer talking about minimal standards, wages or employment rates.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#250

Post by buboard »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #167
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 wo…

that's both insightful and sexist
Post reply on HN