Why creationists can laugh at atheist feminists?

[rainbow]

They ain't met the Lakster, dude. Any one of them would gobble my gristle if she could get a look in.

[Forty Two]

No, he said exactly that.
]

For that reason, the law is only worth the paper it's written on if some of the critics' fears come true. Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that's necessary for the law's success. It's those cases — particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair, the ones that become lore in frats and cautionary tales that fathers e-mail to their sons — that will convince men that they better Be Pretty Damn Sure.

The law is only worth the paper it is written on if campus boards convict people of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations -- that's necessary for the law's success -- it's those cases -- PARTICULARLY the ones that feel genuinely unclear and even unfair -- that will convince men that they better be pretty damn sure.

I.e., it's the injustice that this law works that is its benefit -- it will scare the shit out of men in general so they act Pretty Damn Sure.

You're the one not getting it, Animavore.

Klein's logic is bizarre, and fascistic. Let's broaden the net so we get more arguably innocent people so everyone gets the fucking message, right? Give women a wiiiiiiiide berth...

And, I didn't say "written consent ONLY" I said verbal or written consent -- there are only two ways to get "affirmative consent" dude - verbally, or in writing. If the law requires the accused to demonstrate affirmative consent, then he has to testify either "here's the written consent form" or "she told me 'yes' out loud." What else is he going to say? All other evidence becomes irrelevant -- she was all over him? She was screaming out loud how horny she was as they walked out the door together? She jumped his bones in front of a room full of people and they made out like rabid dogs, then went to another room -- irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is affirmative consent. If he has to show that, then he better have it in writing or on audiotape/videotape, or he's going to have a hard time proving she said what he says she said, isn't she?

That's like the other blurb I noted above, where the legislator was asked how a man was supposed to prove affirmative consent, and she answered "your guess is as good as mine." Fringe?

You're still adding in your own parts, and now what other people in other articles, have said in an attempt to create the crazy narrative you want.

I thought you were better than that Coito.

I'm not adding parts. I quoted the article above. That says exactly what I described. That quote above is from the article - Klein's own words. "The law is only worth the paper it's written on if some of the critics' worst fears come true." What are those fears? Convictions of "sexual assault ... in genuinely ambiguous situations." That, in Klein's own words, is "necessary for the law's success." He says, " It's those cases — particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair..... that will convince men that they better Be Pretty Damn Sure."

His words. I've added nothing. He's saying that convictions of accused persons in genuinely unclear situations and even unfairly is necessary to convince men that they better be "pretty damn sure."

[Forty Two]

Actually, I think most of the extreme feminist stuff is basically an example of a general trend for academic writers on social issues to adopt what has become a politically correct, somewhat left-authoritarian party line. Rather silly stuff, that certainly needs to be criticised where it drifts into the absurd. The fact that the authors will assert they are writing from the one and only, true feminist perspective don't make it so...

Nobody said there was. However, the version of feminism that you believe is the true perspective is also not necessarily so. There is no "one and only true perspective" of any ideology.

[Forty Two]

Come off it rEv, feminists are all fucking crybully extremist harpies, and any bloke who doesn't agree is obviously a white guilt mangina faggot.

Or, it could be that mainstream feminism espouses some absurd views, and anyone who doesn't agree is not following the issues closely.

The idea that women can't be sexist, only men can be sexist, is absurd. But it is a commonly head, non-extreme view within feminism. The whole concept of sexism is prejudice plus power, and that women are a marginalized group and men the privileged group, and therefore men can be sexist but women cannot - that's part of mainstream feminism. Do "all feminists" believe that? No. But, that doesn't change the fact that it is a mainstream view.

Many feminists ARE crybully harpies. Not everyone is, of course, but many are. Just like many Christians are crybully harpies and such.

[Animavore]

No, he said exactly that.
]

For that reason, the law is only worth the paper it's written on if some of the critics' fears come true. Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that's necessary for the law's success. It's those cases — particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair, the ones that become lore in frats and cautionary tales that fathers e-mail to their sons — that will convince men that they better Be Pretty Damn Sure.

The law is only worth the paper it is written on if campus boards convict people of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations -- that's necessary for the law's success -- it's those cases -- PARTICULARLY the ones that feel genuinely unclear and even unfair -- that will convince men that they better be pretty damn sure.

I.e., it's the injustice that this law works that is its benefit -- it will scare the shit out of men in general so they act Pretty Damn Sure.

You're the one not getting it, Animavore.

Klein's logic is bizarre, and fascistic. Let's broaden the net so we get more arguably innocent people so everyone gets the fucking message, right? Give women a wiiiiiiiide berth...

And, I didn't say "written consent ONLY" I said verbal or written consent -- there are only two ways to get "affirmative consent" dude - verbally, or in writing. If the law requires the accused to demonstrate affirmative consent, then he has to testify either "here's the written consent form" or "she told me 'yes' out loud." What else is he going to say? All other evidence becomes irrelevant -- she was all over him? She was screaming out loud how horny she was as they walked out the door together? She jumped his bones in front of a room full of people and they made out like rabid dogs, then went to another room -- irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is affirmative consent. If he has to show that, then he better have it in writing or on audiotape/videotape, or he's going to have a hard time proving she said what he says she said, isn't she?

That's like the other blurb I noted above, where the legislator was asked how a man was supposed to prove affirmative consent, and she answered "your guess is as good as mine." Fringe?

You're still adding in your own parts, and now what other people in other articles, have said in an attempt to create the crazy narrative you want.

I thought you were better than that Coito.

I'm not adding parts. I quoted the article above. That says exactly what I described. That quote above is from the article - Klein's own words. "The law is only worth the paper it's written on if some of the critics' worst fears come true." What are those fears? Convictions of "sexual assault ... in genuinely ambiguous situations." That, in Klein's own words, is "necessary for the law's success." He says, " It's those cases — particularly the ones that feel genuinely unclear and maybe even unfair..... that will convince men that they better Be Pretty Damn Sure."

His words. I've added nothing. He's saying that convictions of accused persons in genuinely unclear situations and even unfairly is necessary to convince men that they better be "pretty damn sure."

You're subtly moving goalposts now. First you said men have to be sacrificed for the greater good. Of course the article doesn't say that. It pits the odd man having to defend himself in genuine cases of false allegations against the many cases of women having to defend ambiguous cases of negative consent, often with their character being questioned, and favours turning tables on the former.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Forty Two]

No goalpost movement - the men who are sacrificed are those who are convicted in ambiguous and even "unfair" circumstances. The greater good is to make sure that men "better be pretty damn sure."

And, the issue of the "odd man" being subjected to false allegations is present in all of criminal law. It's not as if police are generally speaking just out arresting innocent people. Most people arrested for most crimes are guilty. That doesn't mean we abandon the burden of proof. That's why Klein's argument is bizarre. It's just women who have to defend ambiguous allegations -- everyone has to. Anyone accused of a crime gets to put up a defense, and they need to prove anything. The burden rests on the State. Suggesting that the burden should rest on the accused to prove consent, and even moreso not just consent but AFFIRMATIVE consent, is rather weird.

[JimC]

Actually, I think most of the extreme feminist stuff is basically an example of a general trend for academic writers on social issues to adopt what has become a politically correct, somewhat left-authoritarian party line. Rather silly stuff, that certainly needs to be criticised where it drifts into the absurd. The fact that the authors will assert they are writing from the one and only, true feminist perspective don't make it so...

Nobody said there was. However, the version of feminism that you believe is the true perspective is also not necessarily so. There is no "one and only true perspective" of any ideology.

I've never indicated a "a version of feminism that I believe is the true perspective". All I've said is that feminism is a very, very broad concept, and that the shrill rants from academic feminists that you and the Dodo man continually quote are a small subset of a movement where the majority views are considerably milder. Your continuing examples seem designed to paint all of feminism with the colours of the end of its bell curve...

[DaveDodo007]

Actually, I think most of the extreme feminist stuff is basically an example of a general trend for academic writers on social issues to adopt what has become a politically correct, somewhat left-authoritarian party line. Rather silly stuff, that certainly needs to be criticised where it drifts into the absurd. The fact that the authors will assert they are writing from the one and only, true feminist perspective don't make it so...

Nobody said there was. However, the version of feminism that you believe is the true perspective is also not necessarily so. There is no "one and only true perspective" of any ideology.

I've never indicated a "a version of feminism that I believe is the true perspective". All I've said is that feminism is a very, very broad concept, and that the shrill rants from academic feminists that you and the Dodo man continually quote are a small subset of a movement where the majority views are considerably milder. Your continuing examples seem designed to paint all of feminism with the colours of the end of its bell curve...

Your scrupulosity nature has blinded you to the danger to free speech, freedom and liberty. It is all about censorship and shutting down dissenting voices, their very intersectionality will throw women's rights and safety under a bus if it doesn't fit the narrative. Throw away your rose tinted glasses as you can still support women's rights without romancing cultural marxists feminism. You wouldn't support this behaviour from religion so what gives.

[DaveDodo007]

Our sheilas would fucking punch Dodo and Coito out. They don't need radical academic feminism.

[Forty Two]

Actually, I think most of the extreme feminist stuff is basically an example of a general trend for academic writers on social issues to adopt what has become a politically correct, somewhat left-authoritarian party line. Rather silly stuff, that certainly needs to be criticised where it drifts into the absurd. The fact that the authors will assert they are writing from the one and only, true feminist perspective don't make it so...

Nobody said there was. However, the version of feminism that you believe is the true perspective is also not necessarily so. There is no "one and only true perspective" of any ideology.

I've never indicated a "a version of feminism that I believe is the true perspective". All I've said is that feminism is a very, very broad concept,

So is Christianity, but we don't hesitate to criticize concepts supported by Christians and Christian groups. I haven't aid that feminism is not broad. Folks like Christina Hoff-Sommers call themselves feminists, but they are fighting against the prevailing feminist groups these days.

and that the shrill rants from academic feminists that you and the Dodo man continually quote are a small subset of a movement where the majority views are considerably milder. Your continuing examples seem designed to paint all of feminism with the colours of the end of its bell curve...

Well, look, when you're talking about an ideology, the prominent voices of those ideologies -- the writers of books -- the leading figures -- these are the ones I've been talking about. The only reason I have "continuing examples" is because there are so many of them

I'm not painting anyone in any way. I'm just saying the ideas espoused by the feminists I've quote and cited are bizare and outlandish, often totalitarian in nature, and certainly illiberal, and that these are not uncommon views. There are, of course, other "feminists" that may not agree with them. That's fine. That doesn't mean there isn't a prevailing lunacy out there. Look at Feminist Frequency and Kevin Logan and Steve Shives on youtube. Look at their sources -- they cite lunatics like Bell Hooks. Look at Kate Smurthwaite. Jessica Valenti. Are these the wacky extremists you think are not to be listened to? Or are they mild?

[DaveDodo007]

Actually, I think most of the extreme feminist stuff is basically an example of a general trend for academic writers on social issues to adopt what has become a politically correct, somewhat left-authoritarian party line. Rather silly stuff, that certainly needs to be criticised where it drifts into the absurd. The fact that the authors will assert they are writing from the one and only, true feminist perspective don't make it so...

Nobody said there was. However, the version of feminism that you believe is the true perspective is also not necessarily so. There is no "one and only true perspective" of any ideology.

I've never indicated a "a version of feminism that I believe is the true perspective". All I've said is that feminism is a very, very broad concept,

So is Christianity, but we don't hesitate to criticize concepts supported by Christians and Christian groups. I haven't aid that feminism is not broad. Folks like Christina Hoff-Sommers call themselves feminists, but they are fighting against the prevailing feminist groups these days.

and that the shrill rants from academic feminists that you and the Dodo man continually quote are a small subset of a movement where the majority views are considerably milder. Your continuing examples seem designed to paint all of feminism with the colours of the end of its bell curve...

Well, look, when you're talking about an ideology, the prominent voices of those ideologies -- the writers of books -- the leading figures -- these are the ones I've been talking about. The only reason I have "continuing examples" is because there are so many of them

I'm not painting anyone in any way. I'm just saying the ideas espoused by the feminists I've quote and cited are bizare and outlandish, often totalitarian in nature, and certainly illiberal, and that these are not uncommon views. There are, of course, other "feminists" that may not agree with them. That's fine. That doesn't mean there isn't a prevailing lunacy out there. Look at Feminist Frequency and Kevin Logan and Steve Shives on youtube. Look at their sources -- they cite lunatics like Bell Hooks. Look at Kate Smurthwaite. Jessica Valenti. Are these the wacky extremists you think are not to be listened to? Or are they mild?

It's like arguing with the religious, the Gregory Elliott case in Canada should have been a eureka moment, nah nothing. The attacks in Cologne were feminists showed that they don't care about women being raped and sexually assaulted and even indulged in deflection and rape apology or the safety of women in general, epiphany, well not on your nelly, the narrative is all. There is no evil, no fallacy, no sick twisted level that feminism can sink to that will make them show some self reflection. It's a godless religion to them. I'm still waiting to be shown all these feminists who care about equality which doesn't include them and their friends. Name me one other ideology that says you should check out the dictionary definition rather than read feminist's literature, how telling is that.

Still people who called themselves feminists in the UK are at 7%, 4% males and 9% females. Which is roughly equivalent to the numbers of mental ill people of the UK so there is that.

[pErvinalia]

You forgot to turn the "Repeat" button off, Dave.

[DaveDodo007]

You forgot to turn the "Repeat" button off, Dave.

You forgot to provide evidence of feminists caring about equality and explain their callous indifference to German (Sweden and the UK) women being raped and sexually assaulted by rapeugees. I'll wait.

[pErvinalia]

I've already provided evidence. There's quite a few feminists on this forum (including myself) who are nothing like the charicature that you portray.

You're not here to review evidence. You're only here to rant, endlessly.

[Forty Two]

I've already provided evidence. There's quite a few feminists on this forum (including myself) who are nothing like the charicature that you portray.

You're not here to review evidence. You're only here to rant, endlessly.

Look, but you and a couple people on this forum are not prominent feminists.

It's like saying you're a Christian even though you think Jesus is metaphorical and may never have existed, and that the Bible is just a nice set of tales that gives us a historical context of our overall cultural connection to each other, and then say that criticism of prominent and prevailing Christian voices that are literalist in nature and exclusionary and divisive are not views substantial enough to criticize vehemently.

The Moral Majority and Pat Robertson are not "representative of the views of all Christians" and many Christians have a comparatively milquetoast position on Christian dogma, but those Moral Majority and Pat Robertson voices are influential, powerful, and very common. That's the kind of voices I'm pointing to. Prominent, public figures of far more substantial note than you and a couple other denizens of this obscure website. Authors and public speakers and educators are all among the whackjobs and these are not isolated outlying figures. These are prevailing feminists -- leading feminists.