Slashdot Mirror

...in 2000, for example, females accounted for one percent of those arrested for rape and eight percent of those arrested for other sex offenses (not including prostitution). (110) Data gathered from random samples of women, though, suggest that abusive behavior is far more common than the sex offender arrest percentages reveal. For example, in a large survey of college-aged women, (111) almost all of the respondents had at some point initiated sexual contact with a male, and their initiatives often were not benign. More than thirty percent of the subjects admitted getting their partners drunk or stoned to have sex, just under thirty percent admitted having taken advantage of a teenager, twenty-eight percent admitted having threatened physical force, and about twenty-five percent admitted having obtained sex by abusing their position of authority. (112) ...In a third study, forty percent of child sexual abuse incidents occurring in a daycare setting involved females, (116) and forty-three percent of college men in a fourth study reported having had a sexually coercive experience with a woman since the age of sixteen. (117)

http://www.blogher.com/gender-...

The bias is likely in

a) society
b) prosecution
c) law

I suspect the magical words would be "statutory", "position of authority", "fuck me or die", or "here's your beer".

I have no solution for cellphones, but I'm not a big cellphone user anyway, so that solves that, for me.

For everyone else, smartphone apps apparently control SMS and calls pretty well, even preventing your abuser from reaching your voicemail.

To clarify: What I linked above is the Readercon incident (mentioned second in TFS). I do agree that the lifetime ban is harsh, but it IS a zero-tolerance policy, and it's born of trying to create a very comfortable con. Playing favorites on a zero tolerance policy certainly isn't just.

The DEFCON crotch grabbing thing is completely separate. From the first link in TFS:

But I didn't, because of my own bad experiences at DEFCON, and those of people like KC, a journalist and student in San Francisco who wrote about attending DEFCON 19:

Nothing could have prepared me for the onslaught of bad behavior I experienced. Like the man who drunkenly tried to lick my shoulder tattoo. Like the man who grabbed my hips while I was waiting for a drink at the EFF party. Like the man who tried to get me to show him my tits so he could punch a hole in a card that, when filled, would net him a favor from one of the official security staff.

Or the experience of one of my friends, who prefers to remain anonymous. At a recent DEFCON, while leaning over to get her drink at the bar, someone slid his hand up all the way between her legs and grabbed her crotch.

Read the article. This is about women -- human beings with all the same thoughts and feelings as men -- getting groped and molested by men who are so broken in the head that they think such behavior is merely "politically incorrect".

Too bad it's a bait-and-switch. That is, bring up incidents of sexual assault, but use them to promote a policy which IS about politically correctness, or worse. An egregious example:

Exhibitors in the expo hall, sponsor or vendor booths, or similar activities are also subject to the anti-harassment policy. In particular, exhibitors should not use sexualized images, activities, or other material. Booth staff (including volunteers) should not use sexualized clothing/uniforms/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment.

Note that by "sexualized images", they're not referring just to Hustler spreads. They're referring to the sort of imagery that you see every day in the Real World (including, notably, on the covers of "women's magazines").

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-file-87-socialists-in-obama.html

Unlike the "Racist" tag tossed by the looney left, there are actual "socialists" all over Obama's Administration. Oh, and I bet Martin Luther King's Niece has never been called a racist before ...

What Beck's rally signifies is the new face of racism, in that it's insidious, but not in-your face racist.

Excerpt From http://www.blogher.com/glenn-becks-restoring-honor-rally-racist-or-just-free-speech.

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-09-14/1252938242628.jpg

What happened to free will and free choice? If sitting on your ass watching TV, drinking cokes makes you fat who cares. Why should the government have the right to tell someone they need to not do/consume certain things via a tax.

Someone could argue that fat people cost more in medical expenses and because of this they cause the cost of medical procedures to rise. This may be true. However, if someone is over weight they have a higher chance of death via heart attack, or diabetes. Healthy people end up living longer, and costing more money. So what is the problem with someone being fat? In the long run they cost less.

On the other hand could fit people also cause medical expenses to rise? Running is bad for your knees you could twist a knee or ankle in basketball or baseball. You could get a concussion in football or loose tooth in hockey.

So being both health or fat increase the cost of insurance and medical expenses on a whole, so why just target fat people? Is this just a political/social vendetta against over weight people?