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

311–320 of 387 posts

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#311

Post by vinceguidry »

senorjazz wrote: post #297
vinceguidry wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's horrible that this happened, but to be perfectly honest, this is why society is having a massive argument around what consent means. Did she really consent to having sex with him if she felt so ashamed of it afterward that she accused him of raping her? How voluntary was it really? If you're a kid in this position, wondering whether it's dangerous to have sex, the answer is yes, it's one of the most dang…

Bollox. I don't think I could disagree more with practically everything you have written.

Which part, do you think we shouldn't be worrying about consent issues when having sex? Or maybe that teenagers absolutely should be banging everything that moves?

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#312

Post by weberc2 »

Lazare wrote: post #149
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.

> In the workplace dating coworkers is generally frowned upon. And at a restaurant, being in a relationship with a fellow patron is quite common. Similarly, no legal or cultural ban against dating your room mate when you rent a house (much to the relief of married couples everywhere). Students are (mostly) not employees of the university, but they are customers of educational services and (quite often) tenants. A uni…

Universities are paid largely by federal student loans and tax dollars. This is not a standard business/patron agreement. Expelling a student $50K in debt can ruin their life. The university owes them a fair trial. And there is no excuse for the overt discrimination or other shenanigans we’re seeing.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#313

Post by jenkstom »

jancsika wrote: post #85

How in the world is the conversation not about the lack of ethics of the teachers and faculty who agree to serve as the amateur judges/questioners in these tribunals? Hello, I spent a decade of my life learning just how difficult it is to become an expert in my very narrow field. In fact I spend most of my time helping undergrads refine their rank speculation into tractable problems to potentially guide them to a dee…

Because it's about public policy.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#314

Post by _rpaf »

DisruptiveDave wrote: post #254

In my junior year of college (very early 2000s), a senior friend was accused of rape by a classmate. Within two days he had to hide out at my girlfriend's house because a large group of large athletes was on the hunt for him to beat him up. Within weeks he was expelled from school. I don't recall the police ever being contacted. Turns out the girl was ashamed she voluntarily slept with him. She admitted it to friends…

[flagged]

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#315

Post by ellius »

lainga wrote: post #138
ellius wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A university is a business." This is a massive false equivalence. For one thing, most of the "employees" in your metaphor are eighteen to twenty-two years old. Not to mention the fact that students are regularly put through the ringer and expelled on the first accusation. It's hardly akin to the "repeat offense" scenario you outlined in your first example. And comparing being expelled for an alleged sexual assault t…

Employees come to a business and exchange their money for goods and services?

An apple is red, and your underwear are red, so you should eat your underwear.

The fact that two things share a superficial attribute does not make them equivalent.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#316

Post by claudiawerner »

naasking wrote: post #293
claudiawerner wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a great paper on this, Rape Culture and Epistemology [0] which, although provocatively titled, addresses why a lower standard of proof may be appropriate. >We’ll argue that this sort of deference is mistaken, for at least two kinds of reasons. One is that, as anti-rape activists have often emphasized, law enforcement procedures themselves are deeply flawed when it comes to their practice of dealing with sexua…

> We’ll argue that this sort of deference is mistaken, for at least two kinds of reasons. One is that, as anti-rape activists have often emphasized, law enforcement procedures themselves are deeply flawed when it comes to their practice of dealing with sexual assault. Totally agreed. That doesn't justify instituting another unjust system to somehow counterbalance the existing unjust system. This just shifts the injus…

The presumption in your comment is that the system that replaces the legal system in these situations is equally or more unjust - however according to the authors, by realizing why the legal system is unjust, a university body may do a better job - after all, it is undoubtedly easier to change the laws of a university body than to change them in society as a whole, and the university body may not subject to the same cultural pressures the state is (according to the authors, this would be a patriarchal culture).

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#317

Post by lisper »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #220
lisper wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> someone like you Do you listen to yourself? What exactly did you mean by "someone like you"? Do you not get that the whole problem is people thinking in terms of "people like you" (i.e. "women", "muslims", "blacks", "C++ fans", "privileged white males who have had life served up to them on a silver platter") instead of "you"? > this kind of statement is part of the problem And what exactly is "this kind of statemen…

What exactly did you mean by "someone like you"? Someone on the leader board who self identifies as male.

OK, so "this kind of statement is part of the problem" when it comes from a male but would not be "part of the problem" if I self-identified as a female?

(BTW, the original question was rhetorical, and so is this one. I'm not actually looking for an answer.)

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#318

Post by naasking »

claudiawerner wrote: post #316
naasking wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We’ll argue that this sort of deference is mistaken, for at least two kinds of reasons. One is that, as anti-rape activists have often emphasized, law enforcement procedures themselves are deeply flawed when it comes to their practice of dealing with sexual assault. Totally agreed. That doesn't justify instituting another unjust system to somehow counterbalance the existing unjust system. This just shifts the injus…

The presumption in your comment is that the system that replaces the legal system in these situations is equally or more unjust - however according to the authors, by realizing why the legal system is unjust, a university body may do a better job - after all, it is undoubtedly easier to change the laws of a university body than to change them in society as a whole, and the university body may not subject to the same…

> The presumption in your comment is that the system that replaces the legal system in these situations is equally or more unjust

No, I'm actually presuming that injustice cannot be weighed and compared. Statements like "equally or more unjust" are fallacious. If injustice is demonstrable, then we know where the injustice is and so where to focus our efforts, since presumably our goal ought to be eliminating injustice.

How does creating a whole new system that introduces its own problems and its own injustice further the agenda of eliminating injustice? Now you have two unjust systems.

This is HN, so consider the question of when it's appropriate to throw out a buggy program and rewrite it all from scratch, as opposed to gradually evolving the buggy system to a better state. Rewrites are occasionally justified, but it's widely recognized that this is a rare exception, and I'd argue for many of the same reasons.

> after all, it is undoubtedly easier to change the laws of a university body than to change them in society as a whole

That's not a priori a good thing. Laws should be hard to change. Attempting to bypass this process ignores all the reasons why laws must be hard to change.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#319

Post by really3452 »

DisruptiveDave wrote: post #254

In my junior year of college (very early 2000s), a senior friend was accused of rape by a classmate. Within two days he had to hide out at my girlfriend's house because a large group of large athletes was on the hunt for him to beat him up. Within weeks he was expelled from school. I don't recall the police ever being contacted. Turns out the girl was ashamed she voluntarily slept with him. She admitted it to friends…

> Turns out the girl was ashamed she voluntarily slept with him.

This happened to a classmate of mine in high school but it was reported to the police. He shot himself in the head.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#320

Post by benj111 »

Hitton wrote: post #239
benj111 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it's about 60 more years for anti-black biases to be eliminated, 140 years for skin tone biases against darker skin to go away" Why the distinction? Will black people still be facing skin tone biases in 61 years? What even is a skin tone bias? I'm pretty sure this isn't a bias against people who come back from holiday with a tan, which suggests it's not about skin tone, so racism?

Skin tone bias is independent of race, because it often manifests inside the race boundaries. Among Indians https://theconversation.com/bleached-girls-india-and-its-lov... Among African-Americans https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-35485-001 Among East Asians https://nextshark.com/east-asian-pale-skin-beauty-standard/ Difference Between Racism and Colorism: https://time.com/4512430/colorism-in-america/

Ok fair enough, I was thinking about this from a western white person perspective.

I still question whether this should be an ism though. The West kind of has/had these divisions. Pre 20th century having a tan was looked down on because it indicated you had to work in a field for a living. In the 20th century that kind of reversed because the rich could afford foreign holidays, now we have a situation where half of people wear fake tan, the other half look down on it. That all appears to be classism to me, rather than colourism?

And if the colour difference is genetic, is that not racism? If I treat a black person differently it's racism, if I treat a person of mixed origin differently, that's also racism? If a black person treats a mixed origin person differently, is that not equally racism? It's tempting to think of all Indians or Africans as the same 'race' but I as a western European can be racist towards Eastern Europeans, and Jews, and Gypsies, if I were racist towards an Italian because they had a tan, that would be racism, not colourism?

Is there something I'm missing?

Post reply on HN