Those who have come from Pz's blog, aka THAT thread

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, I'm just going by my experience. I've never heard a single person, except Seth, who said anything close to "women who dress sexy are asking to be raped," and even he did not say they were asking to be "raped."

And, I see no evidence that a woman who alleges rape is not taken seriously by police to whom she reports it. But, I'm open to be proven wrong (by something other than mere assertion).

In many cases women end up having to pay out of pocket for the costs of a "rape kit":

http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/05/13/maki ... ictims-pay

That's not correct. They aren't made to pay out of pocket. The Violence Against Women Act prohibits women from being made to pay for such kits out of pocket. http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/faq-forensic-examinations.html The reason the cost would show up on a bill is if the law enforcement entity is seeking to recover the cost from an insurance carrier.

Q: VAWA requires a sexual assault victim to have access to an exam free of charge. Does this mean the federal law requires states to pay for the forensic exam?

A: Under 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg-4, a State is not entitled to funds under the STOP Program unless the State or another governmental entity "incurs the full out-of-­pocket cost of forensic medical exams . . . for victims of sexual assault." This means that, if no other governmental entity or insurance carrier pays for the exam, states are required to pay for forensic exams if they wish to receive STOP Program funds. The goal of this provision is to ensure that the victim is not required to pay for the exam.

Rape is a prevalent issue for women in the military that oftentimes earns nothing more than a slap on the wrist:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?secti ... id=8651574

I can't say anything about that specific case, but often plea deals are a result of the prosecutor's analysis of what can be proven at trial. Nothing in the article shows that the case wasn't taken seriously. Such things occur with respect to all crimes up to and including murder. Sometimes plea agreements are entered to secure a conviction.

Or how about the lovely case of a cheerleader who, after her rapist was allowed to go free, was kicked off the cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer for her rapist by name?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... later.html

These sort of problems do still exist, whether you think they're prevalent enough to warrant action or not.

Where do you get the idea that I don't think specific violent crimes and miscarriages of justice don't warrant action?

I never said there weren't miscarriages of justice. There are regarding all kinds of crimes.

Well, having some familiarity with sentencing stats, I don't think that is true, but I guess it may depend on what one thinks the appropriate punishment would be and the severity of the crime, I suppose.

And see above once more. The system still isn't getting it quite right.

The above doesn't prove that people aren't generally being sentenced for the proper amount of time for convictions. You cited two examples of what MAY HAVE BEEN miscarriages of justice. If you think the press doesn't get it wrong in reporting these things, well....

And, aren't they? Who is telling them they can't be?

I'm considering going into nursing after I get some experience in the prehospital field, and while I have no doubt that it's far more acceptable than it might have been a few decades ago, I've still received comments about it being "more of a woman's field" on a few occasions after bringing it up.

So? So, some people think it's a woman's field? That is what you think "keeps" people from going into the field of their choice?

Well, if so, it's just something we'll all have to live with, because it's not something that can be controlled. Some people are going to think nursing is a woman's field, some are going to think butcher or truck driver are men's fields. Oh, well. Like I said, if that's the "problem" left to be solved, then that's not much of a problem.

And, the "problems" you identified above are, if they are as described, miscarriages of justice. They aren't about WOMEN PER SE -- men are wrongly convicted of murder, theft, rape, whatever. People sometimes get over-light sentences on such crimes. This is a criminal justice issue, not a sexism issue.

Now we're on to activism to prevent crime and help victims? Sure. But that has zero to do with subtle attitudes and such. We agree on the former, but you can't bootstrap that to mean that the "subtle attitudes" of some people in our culture mean that we still have some big sexism/discrimination against women problem.

It seems that the argument here is mostly a matter of degrees. You are willing to accept that sexism/discrimination against women still exists but believe it is so rare as to not be an issue, whereas my stance is that we have definitely come a long way but I think there is still enough of it to warrant doing something about.

No, I believe the important things -- job discrimination, education opportunities, etc. -- have been solved.

I believe that people's "attitudes" and whether they think skirts are for women, GI Joe dolls are for boys, or whether pink and blue should have gender meanings, and such, are not really big problems to be solved.

And, I think taking isolated examples of miscarriages of justice in rape cases does not mean that there is an issue of sexism in the criminal justice system, because similar miscarriages of justice occur across the board in criminal justice systems. At bottom, rape is not condoned. Rape is criminalized. It is taken seriously, but there are the same questions of proof that apply in all criminal court actions, and there are legal impediments to making rape a guilt by accusation crime.

[Twoflower]

A lot of the jobs I am currently applying for are asking for women and minority races to apply. I am happy to take advantage of being a woman if it means I will get a job, but I don't agree with hiring people just for the sake of making a company look more diverse.

[Twoflower]

I found this interesting
http://rt.com/usa/news/women-military-r ... rtion-465/

In addition to turning America into a warzone and allowing indefinite torture and detainment for US citizens, Congress this week decided that women raped while serving their country won’t be provided coverage for abortions.
The military, it turns out, is pro-life.
Despite one-in-three women in the military saying they’ve been sexually assaulted while serving their country, the Senate decided to skip over voting for an amendment which would have allowed rape victims coverage for abortion. While civilians employed by the US government are given such protection, coverage is not granted in the US military. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) hoped to change that with an amendment tacked on to the National Defense Authorization Bill, but on Wednesday the Senate decided to move pass the legislation without bringing it up for vote.
Congress did, however, agree to make some changes while voting for the act for Fiscal Year 2012. Should President Barack Obama approve the National Defense Act, sodomy and bestiality in the armed forces will be legalized and Americans can be detained and tortured indefinitely for suspected terrorism crimes without ever being charged.
Sen. Shaheen’s amendment would have lifted the ban on military insurance coverage for victims of rape and incest that sought abortions. Past legislation had granted such coverage, but it was dropped back in 1984. The current law, enacted in 1996, keeps DoD medical personnel from performing abortions and another provision keeps Pentagon funds from covering the procedure except in cases where it threatens the life of the mother.
“This policy is fundamentally unfair to the more than 200,000 women serving in our military," Shaheen said this week.
"They are fighting to protect our rights, and they should have the same rights to reproductive health care as our civilian employees."
"I'm very disappointed that we will not have a chance this week to debate this critical issue," Shaheen tells Huffington Post,"but we'll keep fighting for it as long as we have to."
As Shaheen and other activists continue that fight, thousands of women are sexually assaulted annually in the military. The Department of Defense reveals that in Fiscal Year 2010, 3,000 sexual assaults were reported within the ranks of the armed forces, a quarter of which it lists as rape. Coincidentally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation voted this week to alter their current definition of what constitutes rape, broadening it to include sexual assaults involving penetration not currently contained within the text.
The DoD adds that while the number of reported rapes are substantial, close to 90 percent of rapes are unreported. Compared with civilian life, rape within the military is nearly double.

[hadespussercats]

You know, I chose to work in theatre instead of becoming a structural engineer (which was my other interest back then-- these days I'd love to be involved in material science. Another life, perhaps.) Part of the reason was identity politics-- I thought artists were cool and scientists were dry (I was mostly wrong.) But the other part was that I thought I wasn't good enough at math. I got A's in math, even in my senior calculus class. But I had to work a lot harder for those grades than for anything else-- literature or history or social studies or physics or art. I thought that was a sign I wasn't supposed to do that sort of work.

That was stupid. I wish I had someone in my life back then letting me know that was stupid. Instead, it seemed everyone agreed that of course I should pursue the arts.

They weren't necessarily wrong. I'm good at what I do. But I wonder if the fact of my girlhood played into any of that dynamic.

I'm not saying evil men kept me down. I just think these programs that I hear about that encourage young girls to get excited about science and math are a great idea. And I think it might be wise to keep an eye out as a society for ways we subtly push people into so-called gender-appropriate roles. (Shout out to the male engineers who really wanted to be designing dresses for a living!)

If there is a demand then yes we should be encouraging both sexes into non-trad career choices. If there is a demand. From what I've seen in many cases, there simply is not and yet the programmes go ahead.

I mentioned this before I'm sure, that a College I was affiliated with years ago, reduced the number of male places in a mechanical engineering class to "balance up" the genders. What happened was some girls joined, quit and then after two years of half a class, they didn't get rid of the programme, they shut down the class. Most of the time these things are half assed, ill thought out bullshit and people are actually, ACTUALLY, frightened to question them because to do so leads not to debate but accusations of "gender traitor" or "misogynist", vilification and dismissal.

Business leaders and Politicians have been wooing women for decades. They're invited, no need to hammer the door down, if they don't arrive then we can only assume they are either not interested or being put off.

Whose putting them off in our culture?

If we're talking demand, all humanities programs and pretty much all PhD programs should be terminated.

As for who's putting them off, I'm not sure if I can speak for your culture-- I'm not sure if it's the same on the other side of the pond. But I think there's a lot to be said for how certain professions are portrayed culturally, as to whether certain jobs seem attractive to one group or another.

What you describe happening in your class is stupid. Qualified people shouldn't get the boot just to satisfy a notion of balance that doesn't exist in a crop of candidates. But I'm wondering why people like mozg aren't more numerous. And I suspect it's a subtle question of identity politics.

[mozg]

Yeah that's a question I always pondered, what sort of class is women's studies? When I was still in education sociology meant "left liberal ideologues". I'm assuming it's not lectures by Ron Jeremy, so I'm guessing it's a kind of "Look see, all these women in history that were amazing?! We can do it. But forget all them, they don't count. Men stopped us from doing everything!!! And they killed the blacks!!!" white male bashing fest.

If we weren't so fucking great we might get a complex about it.

That's what I don't get. You have all these examples through history of the accomplishments of women like Marie Curie, Ada Lovelace, Margaret Cavendish, Elizabeth Fry, Florence Nightingale, Maria Mitchell and many many more who apparently are not evidence that women are utterly capable of succeeding in the sciences.

It's all 'yeah but those women who do succeed are cowed by men into acting just like men and they're afraid to speak out against the offensiveness that they put up with every day which discourages women from pursuing science and math.'

I've never felt unwelcome or offended by the attitudes of my male colleagues. In fact, being around them was the first place that I found I could really just relax and be myself, where no facade or pretense is needed. It's not act that I put on every day as many of the feminists I talk to tell me. It's not a disguise.

And no matter what I have done, I have never, ever been able to convince a feminist of that.

[hadespussercats]

I found this interesting
http://rt.com/usa/news/women-military-r ... rtion-465/

In addition to turning America into a warzone and allowing indefinite torture and detainment for US citizens, Congress this week decided that women raped while serving their country won’t be provided coverage for abortions.
The military, it turns out, is pro-life.
Despite one-in-three women in the military saying they’ve been sexually assaulted while serving their country, the Senate decided to skip over voting for an amendment which would have allowed rape victims coverage for abortion. While civilians employed by the US government are given such protection, coverage is not granted in the US military. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) hoped to change that with an amendment tacked on to the National Defense Authorization Bill, but on Wednesday the Senate decided to move pass the legislation without bringing it up for vote.
Congress did, however, agree to make some changes while voting for the act for Fiscal Year 2012. Should President Barack Obama approve the National Defense Act, sodomy and bestiality in the armed forces will be legalized and Americans can be detained and tortured indefinitely for suspected terrorism crimes without ever being charged.
Sen. Shaheen’s amendment would have lifted the ban on military insurance coverage for victims of rape and incest that sought abortions. Past legislation had granted such coverage, but it was dropped back in 1984. The current law, enacted in 1996, keeps DoD medical personnel from performing abortions and another provision keeps Pentagon funds from covering the procedure except in cases where it threatens the life of the mother.
“This policy is fundamentally unfair to the more than 200,000 women serving in our military," Shaheen said this week.
"They are fighting to protect our rights, and they should have the same rights to reproductive health care as our civilian employees."
"I'm very disappointed that we will not have a chance this week to debate this critical issue," Shaheen tells Huffington Post,"but we'll keep fighting for it as long as we have to."
As Shaheen and other activists continue that fight, thousands of women are sexually assaulted annually in the military. The Department of Defense reveals that in Fiscal Year 2010, 3,000 sexual assaults were reported within the ranks of the armed forces, a quarter of which it lists as rape. Coincidentally, the Federal Bureau of Investigation voted this week to alter their current definition of what constitutes rape, broadening it to include sexual assaults involving penetration not currently contained within the text.
The DoD adds that while the number of reported rapes are substantial, close to 90 percent of rapes are unreported. Compared with civilian life, rape within the military is nearly double.

Well, jeez. Why wouldn't a woman choose a military career?

For fuck's sake.

[hadespussercats]

Yeah that's a question I always pondered, what sort of class is women's studies? When I was still in education sociology meant "left liberal ideologues". I'm assuming it's not lectures by Ron Jeremy, so I'm guessing it's a kind of "Look see, all these women in history that were amazing?! We can do it. But forget all them, they don't count. Men stopped us from doing everything!!! And they killed the blacks!!!" white male bashing fest.

If we weren't so fucking great we might get a complex about it.

That's what I don't get. You have all these examples through history of the accomplishments of women like Marie Curie, Ada Lovelace, Margaret Cavendish, Elizabeth Fry, Florence Nightingale, Maria Mitchell and many many more who apparently are not evidence that women are utterly capable of succeeding in the sciences.

It's all 'yeah but those women who do succeed are cowed by men into acting just like men and they're afraid to speak out against the offensiveness that they put up with every day which discourages women from pursuing science and math.'

I've never felt unwelcome or offended by the attitudes of my male colleagues. In fact, being around them was the first place that I found I could really just relax and be myself, where no facade or pretense is needed. It's not act that I put on every day as many of the feminists I talk to tell me. It's not a disguise.

And no matter what I have done, I have never, ever been able to convince a feminist of that.

Just to emphasize/clarify--
I don't think successful engineers have to act like men, whatever that means. And frankly I'm pissed at that notion just as much for how it defines appropriate "male" behavior as for how it dismisses the achievements and womanhood of successful engineers who happen to be women.

What I'm talking about, in terms of math and science skills, goes back to grade school. Why aren't there more girls who really love math and want to pursue a math-heavy field some day as a career? Clearly, there are women who do it. But why are they so few and far between?

I offered up my own experience as an anecdote. But, as I said, I hope it doesn't get spun into a claim that men kept me down.

[Wumbologist]

That's not correct. They aren't made to pay out of pocket. The Violence Against Women Act prohibits women from being made to pay for such kits out of pocket. http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/faq-forensic-examinations.html The reason the cost would show up on a bill is if the law enforcement entity is seeking to recover the cost from an insurance carrier.

Q: VAWA requires a sexual assault victim to have access to an exam free of charge. Does this mean the federal law requires states to pay for the forensic exam?

A: Under 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg-4, a State is not entitled to funds under the STOP Program unless the State or another governmental entity "incurs the full out-of-­pocket cost of forensic medical exams . . . for victims of sexual assault." This means that, if no other governmental entity or insurance carrier pays for the exam, states are required to pay for forensic exams if they wish to receive STOP Program funds. The goal of this provision is to ensure that the victim is not required to pay for the exam.

Once again you seem to be conflating "it's illegal!" with "it doesn't happen!". The article I posted agrees with you that it is illegal under VAWA... but goes on to explain how the laws regarding it are a mess and often inadequate, causing women to end up with a rather large bill for the collection of evidence against their rapist.

Some state laws are simply inadequate. For example, Oklahoma's law caps compensation for rape victims at $450. This covers barely one-third of the estimated cost of collecting a rape kit in that state. Maine's law caps compensation at $500.The laws in North Dakota, Oregon, and the District of Columbia allow the victim to seek compensation for any cost she incurs for the collection of her rape kit. This means that the victim may first have to pay the bill herself, and then apply for compensation. In Montana, the victim is supposed to be compensated as long as the victim compensation fund does not run out and as long as she cooperates with the investigation.

More in the article if you'd like to give it a good once-over.

I can't say anything about that specific case, but often plea deals are a result of the prosecutor's analysis of what can be proven at trial. Nothing in the article shows that the case wasn't taken seriously. Such things occur with respect to all crimes up to and including murder. Sometimes plea agreements are entered to secure a conviction.

Dude didn't even get a dishonorable discharge.

Where do you get the idea that I don't think specific violent crimes and miscarriages of justice don't warrant action?

The miscarriage of justice in her rapist being let free is one thing... but unless there's an underlying problem at work, how do you explain the subsequent issue of the girl being kicked off the cheerleading squad for not cheering for her rapist by name?

The above doesn't prove that people aren't generally being sentenced for the proper amount of time for convictions. You cited two examples of what MAY HAVE BEEN miscarriages of justice. If you think the press doesn't get it wrong in reporting these things, well....

Two specific instances and a third issue regarding a systematic problem in the way law enforcement and the justice system handles rape cases. That was what I pulled from two minutes of Google, and was not intended to be a thorough cataloging of all such instances, but rather a "here's the kind of things I'm talking about".

So? So, some people think it's a woman's field? That is what you think "keeps" people from going into the field of their choice?

Well, if so, it's just something we'll all have to live with, because it's not something that can be controlled. Some people are going to think nursing is a woman's field, some are going to think butcher or truck driver are men's fields. Oh, well. Like I said, if that's the "problem" left to be solved, then that's not much of a problem.

It won't prevent me from doing anything, because I have a severe shortage of fucks to give. My point, however, is that the societal gender role bias I was referring to does still exist, and while it won't stop me from going into nursing if I damn well feel like it, I'm probably not a typical example to hold up as to how everyone will react to things. I also live in a relatively progressive part of the country, to boot. I'd imagine someone more susceptible to what other people think, and in a more conservative part of the country, might very well be turned away from a field they might be interested in, and in which they might have great contributions to make. It's not something we just have to "live with", it's something that we should try to improve upon as a society.

No, I believe the important things -- job discrimination, education opportunities, etc. -- have been solved.

Because laws! Except that those laws aren't always properly followed or enforced and then there's still problems. It's great that we have a mechanism with which to deal with these problems these days, but that mechanism has to be put to good use and ideally we should get to a point where we don't have to use it much, if at all. Legislating a solution to a societal problem has its importance, but ultimately, most such problems have to resolve on a societal level. You go from "I can't discriminate against female employees because it's illegal" to "I won't discriminate against female employees because it's just wrong".

I believe that people's "attitudes" and whether they think skirts are for women, GI Joe dolls are for boys, or whether pink and blue should have gender meanings, and such, are not really big problems to be solved.

I don't think you fully understand where it becomes a problem. It's not a matter of whether pink or blue have gender meanings. I genuinely like a lot of things that are given a traditionally "masculine" leaning by society. I like pickup trucks and guns, and that's totally cool and not something that society needs to change. It's when Little Jimmy's mother won't let him buy a pink notebook for class, despite his genuinely liking that color, because she thinks it's "for girls", and because later on his classmates might pick on him for having a girly notebook. Gender roles will always exist to some degree, because we ARE different. It's a rigid adherence to them that isn't so good.

And, I think taking isolated examples of miscarriages of justice in rape cases does not mean that there is an issue of sexism in the criminal justice system, because similar miscarriages of justice occur across the board in criminal justice systems. At bottom, rape is not condoned. Rape is criminalized. It is taken seriously, but there are the same questions of proof that apply in all criminal court actions, and there are legal impediments to making rape a guilt by accusation crime.

I think MiM's post makes a good point of the kind of thing I'm talking about:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ament.html
This is clearly not the only example that can be found. Just one very recent high-profile one. Wouldn't say "no obstacles" or "problem solved", no... (but maybe France isn't a western civilization ). Of course those morons hurt themselves more in the end, than they hurt her, but that's not the point here.

A better example on rape might be drunk rape. There are lots of guys out there who thinks it's ok to continue all the way, if your date passes out during a drunken cuddle - it isn't.

It's not always the overt "woman gets yanked into a dark alley and violated by a stranger" sort of rape that is the issue. The issue of consent is still one that causes some problems in our society.

[Wumbologist]

That's what I don't get. You have all these examples through history of the accomplishments of women like Marie Curie, Ada Lovelace, Margaret Cavendish, Elizabeth Fry, Florence Nightingale, Maria Mitchell and many many more who apparently are not evidence that women are utterly capable of succeeding in the sciences.

It's all 'yeah but those women who do succeed are cowed by men into acting just like men and they're afraid to speak out against the offensiveness that they put up with every day which discourages women from pursuing science and math.'

I've never felt unwelcome or offended by the attitudes of my male colleagues. In fact, being around them was the first place that I found I could really just relax and be myself, where no facade or pretense is needed. It's not act that I put on every day as many of the feminists I talk to tell me. It's not a disguise.

And no matter what I have done, I have never, ever been able to convince a feminist of that.

Gender traitor!

[Wumbologist]

One of us would have been banned 5 pages ago on Pharyngula!

[mozg]

Just to emphasize/clarify--
I don't think successful engineers have to act like men, whatever that means. And frankly I'm pissed at that notion just as much for how it defines appropriate "male" behavior as for how it dismisses the achievements and womanhood of successful engineers who happen to be women.

What I'm talking about, in terms of math and science skills, goes back to grade school. Why aren't there more girls who really love math and want to pursue a math-heavy field some day as a career? Clearly, there are women who do it. But why are they so few and far between?

I offered up my own experience as an anecdote. But, as I said, I hope it doesn't get spun into a claim that men kept me down.

I honestly couldn't tell you because I wasn't encouraged either way regarding math and science. I went through a period of hating math (largely related to doing long division by hand) that lasted about a year, in which I refused to do any homework. Aside from that my favorite classes in school were always the science and math classes even when they were not easy for me.

My least favorite classes were health and home ec. Bored to fucking tears with those. I did not want anything to do with learning how to sew or care for babies.

[SteveB]

Women and men aren't much different. What is it, like one chromosome out of 26? We are almost completely overlapping magisteria or whatever. Embrace your sameness! Embrace it!

[Wumbologist]

Women and men aren't much different. What is it, like one chromosome out of 26? We are almost completely overlapping magisteria or whatever. Embrace your sameness! Embrace it!

I tried to embrace their sameness once and I ended up with a face full of pepper spray and in the back seat of a squad car.

[Audley Strange]

Yeah that's a question I always pondered, what sort of class is women's studies? When I was still in education sociology meant "left liberal ideologues". I'm assuming it's not lectures by Ron Jeremy, so I'm guessing it's a kind of "Look see, all these women in history that were amazing?! We can do it. But forget all them, they don't count. Men stopped us from doing everything!!! And they killed the blacks!!!" white male bashing fest.

If we weren't so fucking great we might get a complex about it.

That's what I don't get. You have all these examples through history of the accomplishments of women like Marie Curie, Ada Lovelace, Margaret Cavendish, Elizabeth Fry, Florence Nightingale, Maria Mitchell and many many more who apparently are not evidence that women are utterly capable of succeeding in the sciences.

It's all 'yeah but those women who do succeed are cowed by men into acting just like men and they're afraid to speak out against the offensiveness that they put up with every day which discourages women from pursuing science and math.'

I've never felt unwelcome or offended by the attitudes of my male colleagues. In fact, being around them was the first place that I found I could really just relax and be myself, where no facade or pretense is needed. It's not act that I put on every day as many of the feminists I talk to tell me. It's not a disguise.

And no matter what I have done, I have never, ever been able to convince a feminist of that.

Just to emphasize/clarify--
I don't think successful engineers have to act like men, whatever that means. And frankly I'm pissed at that notion just as much for how it defines appropriate "male" behavior as for how it dismisses the achievements and womanhood of successful engineers who happen to be women.

What I'm talking about, in terms of math and science skills, goes back to grade school. Why aren't there more girls who really love math and want to pursue a math-heavy field some day as a career? Clearly, there are women who do it. But why are they so few and far between?

I offered up my own experience as an anecdote. But, as I said, I hope it doesn't get spun into a claim that men kept me down.

Well I certainly didn't think you were saying that men were keeping you down. You asked a question. Its interesting to me that you ask it, why would you assume some sort of invisible social pressure that you were not aware of and are not aware of. Isn't that a bit faithy?

I suppose we could look at other advanced and different cultures, like in China Korea and Japan and see if the maths and science classes there have more uptake by women. If so then we have a cultural answer. If not we can keep chasing an imagining until we find it or consider perhaps it's not cultural but inherent.

[SteveB]

Women and men aren't much different. What is it, like one chromosome out of 26? We are almost completely overlapping magisteria or whatever. Embrace your sameness! Embrace it!

I tried to embrace their sameness once and I ended up with a face full of pepper spray and in the back seat of a squad car.

Clearly, you're not human then.