This ihas been on Facebook all day and driving me up a wall. Take a look at the actual report, something no journalists seem willing or able to do. From the report:
"Exposures to RFR were initiated in utero beginning with the exposure of pregnant dams..."
"All RF exposures were conducted over a period of approximately 18 hours using a continuous cycle of 10 minutes on (exposed) and 10 minutes off (not exposed), for a total daily exposure time of approximately 9 hours a day, 7 days/week."
So yes, if you have been using a cell phone since before you were born, and using it for NINE HOURS A DAY, you have cause to be worried.
Otherwise, take a deep breath, read the Australian study that said there have been no increases in brain cancer over the past 29 years, and give me a call. I'll be on my cell phone.
Just picked up a Moto X to replace my aging Galaxy Nexus. I'm on Verizon, which makes me skeptical I'll see another Nexus phone anytime soon. I like the near-stock Moto X setup, and the little tweaks (active notifications, touchless control, etc) are pretty fun. It's a pretty great phone, and I hope it helps boost Motorola in the Android world. I do think they priced it too high (although I still bought it, so take that as you will..) but I highly recommend the phone to anyone who plays the occasional, not to graphic-intensive games, wants their phone to be quick and responsive, likes stock Android, etc. It's an awesome phone.
I'm not sure how that's the fault of a "nanny state government" rather than overprotective parents. Mind you, I agree that - on the whole - kids today are overly sheltered. (Ugh, as someone not even 30 it pains me to write 'kids today.') But as someone who works with middle and high school students, I also don't think the problem is as bad as it is made out to be. It's usually one parent out of ten or twenty who are truly the obnoxious ones. They're just loud enough, and insistent enough, to paint ALL parents as whiney and over-protective, and thus all youth as sheltered.
But there are still kids running through parks and cities, spending money on candy, and going to play at the skate park. You may just not be hanging out with them.
PS - I'm from a major city in the US, which shapes my view. It sounds like, from some of your language, that you're not from the US. I'd be curious how/if things differ elsewhere, but can only speak from my experience.
I think you're honestly on the right track, but that the problem is pinning down how to carry out abstract ideals. We shouldn't ignore our differences, and (as I said in a previous post) a goal of exact and numerical gender equity in science or sports or video games or interior design is both futile and counterproductive. I suspect the desire for a 50/50 split comes out of gains in women's rights over the last century: as women's voices have been heard more and more in decision making processes, it seemed "natural" to try and go for a 50/50 split. But you're right, in many situations a 50/50 split isn't "natural." The problem is that a goal of anything other than 50/50 runs the risk of playing into cultural/institutional/social/etc sexism (or racism, or whatever bigotry is under discussion).
Now, just because it's difficult to figure out a proper gender split doesn't mean we shouldn't try. ("Proper" meaning "what would happen in the absence of cultural/institutional/social/etc sexism and false social pressures pushing people toward or away from certain activities.") I don't pretend do know how to do that, but making sure that there's equal representation in a decision making process - and honest discussions about how and why gender disparities happen - seems like a good start.
One more thing...
Recognizing differences and telling someone they aren't good enough are two completely different things.
This may be picking hairs, but I think recognizing differences and telling someone they aren't good enough are different things, and yet not completely different things. What I mean is that saying "men and women are different" has - historically - often led to "...and men are smarter and better." That's why I think many feminists - myself included - are skeptical of sentences beginning with "men and women are different." It's not because we pretend men and women are identical. (Well, some so-called feminists do, but I think they're wrong.) It's because we think men and women should be afforded the same opportunities. Noting differences is often (although certainly not always) a precursor to trying to enforce such differences, even when it's not warranted. I think that's why some people immediately try to squash any real and legitimate discussions of differences, and where the "everyone must be treated exactly the same" movement came from. That concept is in the right place, just with the wrong tactics.
Does that help explain why someone like VoidCrow might react so negatively to a claim that men and women are "just different?"
You raise a number of points, some of which I think are valid, and some of which I think are problematic. I'll try to respond where I can.
I don't understand why more people don't accept [that certain fields are more attractive to different genders]. Why is thinking that their is a fundamental difference between the sexes and that they are better suited for different hobbies/challenges/activities so wrong?"
As I said in a previous post, I think the problem is artificial barriers to entry in a field/hobby/whatever. If someone wants to participate in activity/field/hobby/etc outside of their normal gender roles, I think they should be allowed to without getting shit for stepping outside of societal expectations. As a female gamer, my problem isn't as much with a lack of female game designers (although I'll talk about that in a minute) as much as the fact that men often scoff at me for attempting to participate in this 'male' realm. I don't need you (hypotehtical male, not you, np2392) to explain console difference or the history of Diablo when I've been playing video games longer than you've been alive. That's what pisses me off, not that I might be in a situation where, out of 15 gamers, only one or two others are women. I'd love to see more female gamers, because I do think many of the barriers are artificial and not actually having to do with gendered differences, but I don't pretend a 50/50 split is realistic or even desirable.
You are seeing this with video games recently and the complaints that the video game industry is sexist, there aren't enough women in the industry, games are not made equally for men and women, etc. Why is it not okay to just accept that video games are a hobby that have a special appeal for males?
This is where you being to lose me. I think, in this context, "sexist" has come to mean two things: The gender split isn't exactly 50/50 (what I just discussed) and larger false and unnecessary institutional and societal differences in the treatment of men and women. Take Mass Effect. I played through it as femShep and was able to have a lesbian relationship. I played through as femShep and was able to have a straight relationship. I played through as male Sheppard and was able to have a straight relationship. I played through as male Sheppard and was not able to have a gay relationship. That's more homophobia than sexism, but is an example of what I mean: an artificial difference in how characters are presented.
Lets use armor in fantasy games as another example. I have no problem with scantily glad women if the men are also dressed in silly and objectifying costumes. But if the least-revealing outfit selection for a male character includes a full suit of armor and the least-revealing outfit selection for a female character is a corset, that's a problem. That's where I'd say the video game industry is sexist.
Until half of interior designers are male, interior design remains sexist. Lets break some ground and get more gents in there.
Point well taken, but I I think it's sidestepping a deeper issue. You're right, men and women are different. Looking at physical atributes - height, weight, strength - and it's pretty obvious: both men and women lie along bell curves, and the curves are not identical. To use a specific example, the average woman is going to be shorter and weaker than the average man. But the curves also overlap, so that there are specific men who may be shorter than specific women or specific women who are stronger than specific men. Saying "All men are taller than all women" would be pretty stupid. So would saying "All women are better interior decorators than all men." (I don't think this is what you were saying, I'm just using your example.)
All that means that, in my mind, the goal of reducing gender disparity in STEM fields should not be to ensure a 50/50 split between men and women. Such a 50/50 split may not be realistic for the same reason that expecting a 50/50 split between men and women in a breastfeeding competition is unrealistic: men and women are different. Rather, reducing gender disparity in STEM fields should be about reducing any artificial barriers - of education, socialization, institutional sexism, and outright discrimination - that keep out women who might otherwise love to be scientists. Likewise, we should move to reduce any similar artificial barriers that keep out men who might otherwise love to be interior decorators.
A real-world example: Recently, the US military said it would be allowing women to serve in combat roles. I don't expect that this will result in gender equality in combat roles, nor do I think it should. But It will remove an artificial barrier that prevented women from participating in an area where some might want to be (even if it's at a lower percentage than men).
As a side note, I think one of the major historic failings of feminism (something feminists like myself try to call out) is that sexism limits options for men, too. Sexism isn't just about women, nor is feminism.
The problem is that determining what those barriers are is difficult. Likewise, it may be impossible to objectively determine the 'natural' gender disparity in STEM fields or in interior decorating. A goal of a 50/50 split is easier to understand and can be applied indiscriminately to any situation, which is why I think it comes up so much. Then, it gets labeled as foolish, and rightly so, but without any discussion of the deeper underlying issues. Hopefully, though, we can move forward as a society to a point where there's just as much cultural and social support for a woman to be a scientist as there is for a man, or for a man to be an interior decorator as there is for a woman. At that point, maybe we can be OK with a 9/10 or 60/40 split, or whatever it turns out to be, because we'll be confident the people who want to be there can be there, and do well.
Llama DOES NOT have internet permission. Your data isn't going anywhere
Whether or not you believe them is a different issue, but that reassured me at least somewhat. I've been using Llama for a few months now, and really enjoy its functionality.
When was the last time the spirit of the 2nd amendment, the "security of a free state", was maintained with a firearm in the US?
Dunno if there are more recent examples, but in 1946 some WWII veterans used guns as private citizens to help ensure free elections. Now, this doesn't address your other questions, of whether or not such protection from (real or imagined) tyranny is worth it. I tend to be somewhere in the middle: I think people should have the right to bear arms, but that requiring licensing, registration, and training do not infringe on those rights.
A legit question, and one that deserves an honest answer. I like to think of myself as a moral pirate. I try to buy books, music, and movies from artists I respect, when I can afford it. When not, or when it's something where I don't feel the artist(s) or creator(s) particularly needs my money (an entirely subjective and problematic scale, I know) I pirate it.
I feel justified, able to sleep at night, because Big Media (music, movies, TV, books, etc) have failed to hold up their end of the copyright bargin. Copyright is a deal: You (the content creator) gets a limited monopoly on distribution, and are allowed to place whatever restrictions you see fit. In exchange, I (society at large) eventually get entirely free and unrestricted access, when the work enters the public domain. Big Media has failed to hold up their end of the bargin by continually extending copyright terms beyond "reasonable' (another subjective term, I know), retroactively extending copyright for works that have already been created, and using their lobbying might to continue to push laws in their favor. As such, I see little moral or ethical problems with failing to hold up my end of the bargin; namely, respecting their copyright.
So I infringe. I download TV shows, movies, and books, and seed them back to the Internet at large. Were copyright 14 years, 50 years, or even the life of the creator, I'd like to think I would behave differently. But I'm not holding my breath the length of copyright to be reduced anytime soon.
-Rebecca
PS - I do have a problem with people who make money off of the work of still-living artists, by selling pirated copies or movies or books. But non-commercial copyright infringement is morally acceptable in my worldview.
PPS - For what it's worth, I try to practice what I preach. I'm a working artist, making a living off of what I create. Nevertheless, I have my book available for free on my website, along with videos of my shows.
Undoing some moderation, but wanted to chime in. I'm also a trans woman, and circumcised. As far as I can tell, my penis always worked fine. (Where 'fine' = 'got erect, ejaculated, functioned well enough for me to deposit sperm.') So far as I can tell, my being trans is unrelated to how well my genitalia does or doesn't function. Let me know if this responds to what you were curious about - I'd be happy to chat more.
The article link in the OP has some interesting quotes, but to not include the actual Kickstarter project page (which still has 5 days to go) seems incredibly lazy...
As a queer person, thank you for A) being open to changing your mind and B) sharing that experience. As Dan Savage noted, most of the people who voted for marriage equality this past election were straight. I don't always agree with Savage, but here he was spot on: The LGBT community owes thanks to the straight allies, and I appreciate you weighing in on this/. discussion to speak your mind.
I'm a trans woman, coupled with an Eastern European Jewish ancestry, so I kind of lost the body hair lottery. But I'm a huge fan of laser hair removal. The way I've come to describe it? Expensive, painful, and awesome. If you have a medium skin tone and dark body hair, it works exceptionally well.
Awesome use of scare quotes, but repealing DADT still leaves trans people in the dust. Ignoring the fact that (as someone mentioned below) trans people and gay people aren't the same thing (it's a Venn diagram with some overlap, just like straight and trans have some overlap) the US military will still be discriminating against trans people. Don't worry.
(How preventing a trans person like myself, with a tech background and a desire to serve her country, from entering military service helps keep our country safe is a whole different issue.),
PS - Is anyone else having trouble with the comment box? I wasn't able to paste properly,
As someone who is a fan of the Enthusiastic Consent model, I think you're misrepresenting its goals. Specifically...
So this [idea of Enthusiastic Conset] has morphed into an "anything can be considered rape" model, where even getting an affirmative "yes" to each of these questions is not enough. The "yes" has to be truly enthusiastic to count. So telling a girl that you love her and want to have sex with her is rape - because you are exploiting your relationship. Have a couple of drinks together? Rape. Tell her "it's Ok, everybody does it?" Rape. Know somebody who lives in a society that is OK with casual sexual encounters? Ooops, that might be social conditioning - better not try to hook up. 'Cause that's rape.
The idea of Enthusiastic Consent is not to rewrite rape legislation out of whole cloth. Rather, it's to create a social movement where the healthy expectation is that sex should only occur between two people who enthusiastically consent to the activity. To use your example, saying "It's OK, everybody does it" isn't and shouldn't be rape. But I'd sure say it's an ethically questionable way to get someone in bed with you. Likewise for exploiting a relationship status, likewise for using somebodies social expectations of casual sexual encounters to pressure them into sex. Again, none of those situations are rape but they're all situations in which the consent of one party was not given enthusiastically.
And as a woman who really enjoys having sex, surrounded by friends - male and female - who also enjoy having sex, why would I want any of us to be having sex that wasn't consented to with enthusiasm!? Why would you ever want that for yourself, or your friends, or your children? There are enough things in my life that I'm only blase about, sex shouldn't be one of them. And so no, Enthusiastic Consent does not mean that the situations you list somehow are transformed into rape. It does mean that they're indicative of a society which sees little wrong with unenthusiastic sexual encounters, and argues that that's a problem.
As a final note, you scoff at the idea of asking "is it OK if I touch you here?" "Is it OK if I kiss you there?" You don't get to decide what level of consent your partner has offered. And if you don't ask, you can't know for sure.
Of course, in many cases of rape, it is easy to define, which doesn't at all help understanding the cases where it is not as they are often all placed under the banner "rapists cause rape". Emotionally sensitive subjects like this are often easily decided before vigilance for the truth can be heard.
You raise a good point, and one I neglected to address: Claiming to be a victim does not, in fact, always mean you're actually a victim. Someone else on this thread gave the example of a woman drinking, giving explicit consent for sex, and then (when sober) rescinding that consent and calling it rape. In that, case, I'd agree that it's not, in fact, rape. (Whether or not the law would support my point of view.)
Now, I would suspect that the times where there isn't explicit consent vastly outweigh the times where there is rescinded consent, which is probably why the laws are weighted like that; in the favor of the one who is more likely to be the victim. But, unfortunately, I don't have any numbers to back that suspicion up, and statistical likelihood of rape is poor comfort to someone found guilty of a crime they (in my opinion) didn't commit.
Men are victimized by all violent crimes (except possibly rape, where men report lower rates by a factor of up to ten, but want to bet the reporting bias is huge?) at rates up to several times greater than women. A large part of the difference can be accounted for by differences in crime-avoidant behaviors. Women are taught a lot about how to avoid being a victim of violent crime. Men are not. And no one much cares.
I was skeptical of that claim, but it looks like you're mostly correct. For the lazy, women were 20 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted, but men were more than twice as likely to be victims of armed robbery, 2.5 times more likely for aggravated assault, and 1.2 times more likely for simple assault. I'd argue about the wording of "several times greater" but that seems like nitpicking when the general point is sound.
What I don't know that I agree with is the role crime-avoidant behavior plays in those numerical differences. I can't find any studies on the subject, but I'd love to see one. I agree, in general, that victim-avoidant behavior and the overwhelming likelihood the violent crime offender is male account for those differences, but I'm really not sure by how much.
And I don't think any of that changes my original point, that victim-blaming is a bad thing. (radtea, I don't think you were saying this, I just want to make myself clear.)
The question that lurks in all this, and will for centuries to come is, at what point and how, do we hold victims accountable for NOT taking those precautions and what consequences are acceptable. It's the hot stove scenario, at what point is the manufacturing responsible for someone touching a hot burner (safety measures) and at what point is the victim (circumvents said measures). Do they share responsibility? One or the other?
Well-said. I've started (and deleted) a number of counter-arguments to other points in your post, but it seems like you're willing to concede my general premise: the one ultimately responsible for wrongdoing is the one committing the wrong act, even if the victim did not take steps to lessen their desirability as a target. It does sound like we would argue to what extent those steps (or lack thereof) should be taken into account when thinking about or analyzing the victim, but that's a different discussion than what I felt Runnaway1956 was saying, which seemed to drift into victim-blaming. (I'd also say it's a more fruitful discussion, even though the difference between victim-blaming and judging someone for poor behavior is usually a matter of perspective.)
-Trillian
PS - Probably won't forget the difference between lessen and lesson anytime soon...;)
Here is the problem. The law (in the U.S.) does not work that way. Case in point. In the State of Nevada, if a woman has had anything to drink at all (notice the law does not cover men, but that is a different story), has sex with someone, she can file rape charges up to 48 hours (can not remember, might be 24 hours) after and it is assumed that it is by definition rape because she is intoxicated and could not make an informed CHOICE even if she verbally and physically consented.
US law doesn't always work that way
First, I would argue that rape and sex offender laws throughout the country are - from my limited knowledge and exposure to them - pretty ridiculous and inconsistent. You provide a good example, where someone could - in completely good faith - done everything in their power to be assured of consent, but nevertheless be charged with rape for factors out of their control. That's pretty stupid, and I hope a judge would have the cool-headedness to allow that information to play a part in any verdict.
However, I don't think your example counters my original point: the ultimate responsibility for wrong-doing lies with the one who committed the wrong act. And I can provide an example where the law does work that way, as a law in Florida says that the clothing of the victim cannot be admitted as evidence in a rape trial. More to the point, clothing can't be shown as justification for rape.
And that's my point: making potentially poor choices (for example, wearing revealing clothing in a dangerous neighborhood) does not excuse rape. Making poor social choices at school does not excuse bullying.
It doesn't matter what the law is, and it doesn't matter whose fault it is when you are dead because the asshole in the stationwagon wasn't paying attention when she changes into the lane that you on the motorcycle were rightfully occupying.
Spot on, and I'm sorry if my post came off a little strong. If I'm beaten to death because I'm trans - something that has a higher chance of happening than I like to think about - it doesn't do me much good to posthumously be declared 'not at fault' for my death. At the same time, I think there is a difference between the individual level and the societal level of responsibility. That is, on an individual level, yes - most people can do things to reduce their chance of victimization in $SITUATION. But, on the level of social and cultural expectations, there's a danger of that attitude drifting toward victim-blaming, which is what I think Runnaway1956 was doing.
There is, in my opinion, a fine line between advocacy or individual empowerment on the one hand, and blaming people who are victims on the other.
::grin:: No argument here. I just wanted to note that I fit the demographics who might be expected to completely dismiss Runnaway1956's point. I hope I didn't come across as doing so, as taking steps to reduce one's victimization is something any sane individual should do. But I feel very strongly that there's a difference between promoting safer, stronger behavior in potential victims and blaming victims for their misfortune.
Slashdot Mirror
This ihas been on Facebook all day and driving me up a wall. Take a look at the actual report, something no journalists seem willing or able to do. From the report:
"Exposures to RFR were initiated in utero beginning with the exposure of pregnant dams..."
"All RF exposures were conducted over a period of approximately 18 hours using a continuous cycle of 10 minutes on (exposed) and 10 minutes off (not exposed), for a total daily exposure time of approximately 9 hours a day, 7 days/week."
So yes, if you have been using a cell phone since before you were born, and using it for NINE HOURS A DAY, you have cause to be worried.
Otherwise, take a deep breath, read the Australian study that said there have been no increases in brain cancer over the past 29 years, and give me a call. I'll be on my cell phone.
Just picked up a Moto X to replace my aging Galaxy Nexus. I'm on Verizon, which makes me skeptical I'll see another Nexus phone anytime soon. I like the near-stock Moto X setup, and the little tweaks (active notifications, touchless control, etc) are pretty fun. It's a pretty great phone, and I hope it helps boost Motorola in the Android world. I do think they priced it too high (although I still bought it, so take that as you will..) but I highly recommend the phone to anyone who plays the occasional, not to graphic-intensive games, wants their phone to be quick and responsive, likes stock Android, etc. It's an awesome phone.
But I think (hope!) that there's a middle ground between "no way to contact your child" and "constant monitoring of your child's every waking moment."
I'm not sure how that's the fault of a "nanny state government" rather than overprotective parents. Mind you, I agree that - on the whole - kids today are overly sheltered. (Ugh, as someone not even 30 it pains me to write 'kids today.') But as someone who works with middle and high school students, I also don't think the problem is as bad as it is made out to be. It's usually one parent out of ten or twenty who are truly the obnoxious ones. They're just loud enough, and insistent enough, to paint ALL parents as whiney and over-protective, and thus all youth as sheltered.
But there are still kids running through parks and cities, spending money on candy, and going to play at the skate park. You may just not be hanging out with them.
PS - I'm from a major city in the US, which shapes my view. It sounds like, from some of your language, that you're not from the US. I'd be curious how/if things differ elsewhere, but can only speak from my experience.
The #22 Clark is really a better bet. Or anything around Viagra Triangle...
I think you're honestly on the right track, but that the problem is pinning down how to carry out abstract ideals. We shouldn't ignore our differences, and (as I said in a previous post) a goal of exact and numerical gender equity in science or sports or video games or interior design is both futile and counterproductive. I suspect the desire for a 50/50 split comes out of gains in women's rights over the last century: as women's voices have been heard more and more in decision making processes, it seemed "natural" to try and go for a 50/50 split. But you're right, in many situations a 50/50 split isn't "natural." The problem is that a goal of anything other than 50/50 runs the risk of playing into cultural/institutional/social/etc sexism (or racism, or whatever bigotry is under discussion).
Now, just because it's difficult to figure out a proper gender split doesn't mean we shouldn't try. ("Proper" meaning "what would happen in the absence of cultural/institutional/social/etc sexism and false social pressures pushing people toward or away from certain activities.") I don't pretend do know how to do that, but making sure that there's equal representation in a decision making process - and honest discussions about how and why gender disparities happen - seems like a good start.
One more thing...
This may be picking hairs, but I think recognizing differences and telling someone they aren't good enough are different things, and yet not completely different things. What I mean is that saying "men and women are different" has - historically - often led to "...and men are smarter and better." That's why I think many feminists - myself included - are skeptical of sentences beginning with "men and women are different." It's not because we pretend men and women are identical. (Well, some so-called feminists do, but I think they're wrong.) It's because we think men and women should be afforded the same opportunities. Noting differences is often (although certainly not always) a precursor to trying to enforce such differences, even when it's not warranted. I think that's why some people immediately try to squash any real and legitimate discussions of differences, and where the "everyone must be treated exactly the same" movement came from. That concept is in the right place, just with the wrong tactics.
Does that help explain why someone like VoidCrow might react so negatively to a claim that men and women are "just different?"
You raise a number of points, some of which I think are valid, and some of which I think are problematic. I'll try to respond where I can.
As I said in a previous post, I think the problem is artificial barriers to entry in a field/hobby/whatever. If someone wants to participate in activity/field/hobby/etc outside of their normal gender roles, I think they should be allowed to without getting shit for stepping outside of societal expectations. As a female gamer, my problem isn't as much with a lack of female game designers (although I'll talk about that in a minute) as much as the fact that men often scoff at me for attempting to participate in this 'male' realm. I don't need you (hypotehtical male, not you, np2392) to explain console difference or the history of Diablo when I've been playing video games longer than you've been alive. That's what pisses me off, not that I might be in a situation where, out of 15 gamers, only one or two others are women. I'd love to see more female gamers, because I do think many of the barriers are artificial and not actually having to do with gendered differences, but I don't pretend a 50/50 split is realistic or even desirable.
This is where you being to lose me. I think, in this context, "sexist" has come to mean two things: The gender split isn't exactly 50/50 (what I just discussed) and larger false and unnecessary institutional and societal differences in the treatment of men and women. Take Mass Effect. I played through it as femShep and was able to have a lesbian relationship. I played through as femShep and was able to have a straight relationship. I played through as male Sheppard and was able to have a straight relationship. I played through as male Sheppard and was not able to have a gay relationship. That's more homophobia than sexism, but is an example of what I mean: an artificial difference in how characters are presented.
Lets use armor in fantasy games as another example. I have no problem with scantily glad women if the men are also dressed in silly and objectifying costumes. But if the least-revealing outfit selection for a male character includes a full suit of armor and the least-revealing outfit selection for a female character is a corset, that's a problem. That's where I'd say the video game industry is sexist.
Point well taken, but I I think it's sidestepping a deeper issue. You're right, men and women are different. Looking at physical atributes - height, weight, strength - and it's pretty obvious: both men and women lie along bell curves, and the curves are not identical. To use a specific example, the average woman is going to be shorter and weaker than the average man. But the curves also overlap, so that there are specific men who may be shorter than specific women or specific women who are stronger than specific men. Saying "All men are taller than all women" would be pretty stupid. So would saying "All women are better interior decorators than all men." (I don't think this is what you were saying, I'm just using your example.)
All that means that, in my mind, the goal of reducing gender disparity in STEM fields should not be to ensure a 50/50 split between men and women. Such a 50/50 split may not be realistic for the same reason that expecting a 50/50 split between men and women in a breastfeeding competition is unrealistic: men and women are different. Rather, reducing gender disparity in STEM fields should be about reducing any artificial barriers - of education, socialization, institutional sexism, and outright discrimination - that keep out women who might otherwise love to be scientists. Likewise, we should move to reduce any similar artificial barriers that keep out men who might otherwise love to be interior decorators.
A real-world example: Recently, the US military said it would be allowing women to serve in combat roles. I don't expect that this will result in gender equality in combat roles, nor do I think it should. But It will remove an artificial barrier that prevented women from participating in an area where some might want to be (even if it's at a lower percentage than men).
As a side note, I think one of the major historic failings of feminism (something feminists like myself try to call out) is that sexism limits options for men, too. Sexism isn't just about women, nor is feminism.
The problem is that determining what those barriers are is difficult. Likewise, it may be impossible to objectively determine the 'natural' gender disparity in STEM fields or in interior decorating. A goal of a 50/50 split is easier to understand and can be applied indiscriminately to any situation, which is why I think it comes up so much. Then, it gets labeled as foolish, and rightly so, but without any discussion of the deeper underlying issues. Hopefully, though, we can move forward as a society to a point where there's just as much cultural and social support for a woman to be a scientist as there is for a man, or for a man to be an interior decorator as there is for a woman. At that point, maybe we can be OK with a 9/10 or 60/40 split, or whatever it turns out to be, because we'll be confident the people who want to be there can be there, and do well.
Whether or not you believe them is a different issue, but that reassured me at least somewhat. I've been using Llama for a few months now, and really enjoy its functionality.
Undoing moderation to post.
Dunno if there are more recent examples, but in 1946 some WWII veterans used guns as private citizens to help ensure free elections. Now, this doesn't address your other questions, of whether or not such protection from (real or imagined) tyranny is worth it. I tend to be somewhere in the middle: I think people should have the right to bear arms, but that requiring licensing, registration, and training do not infringe on those rights.
A legit question, and one that deserves an honest answer. I like to think of myself as a moral pirate. I try to buy books, music, and movies from artists I respect, when I can afford it. When not, or when it's something where I don't feel the artist(s) or creator(s) particularly needs my money (an entirely subjective and problematic scale, I know) I pirate it.
I feel justified, able to sleep at night, because Big Media (music, movies, TV, books, etc) have failed to hold up their end of the copyright bargin. Copyright is a deal: You (the content creator) gets a limited monopoly on distribution, and are allowed to place whatever restrictions you see fit. In exchange, I (society at large) eventually get entirely free and unrestricted access, when the work enters the public domain. Big Media has failed to hold up their end of the bargin by continually extending copyright terms beyond "reasonable' (another subjective term, I know), retroactively extending copyright for works that have already been created, and using their lobbying might to continue to push laws in their favor. As such, I see little moral or ethical problems with failing to hold up my end of the bargin; namely, respecting their copyright.
So I infringe. I download TV shows, movies, and books, and seed them back to the Internet at large. Were copyright 14 years, 50 years, or even the life of the creator, I'd like to think I would behave differently. But I'm not holding my breath the length of copyright to be reduced anytime soon.
-Rebecca
PS - I do have a problem with people who make money off of the work of still-living artists, by selling pirated copies or movies or books. But non-commercial copyright infringement is morally acceptable in my worldview.
PPS - For what it's worth, I try to practice what I preach. I'm a working artist, making a living off of what I create. Nevertheless, I have my book available for free on my website, along with videos of my shows.
Undoing some moderation, but wanted to chime in. I'm also a trans woman, and circumcised. As far as I can tell, my penis always worked fine. (Where 'fine' = 'got erect, ejaculated, functioned well enough for me to deposit sperm.') So far as I can tell, my being trans is unrelated to how well my genitalia does or doesn't function. Let me know if this responds to what you were curious about - I'd be happy to chat more.
The article link in the OP has some interesting quotes, but to not include the actual Kickstarter project page (which still has 5 days to go) seems incredibly lazy...
As a queer person, thank you for A) being open to changing your mind and B) sharing that experience. As Dan Savage noted, most of the people who voted for marriage equality this past election were straight. I don't always agree with Savage, but here he was spot on: The LGBT community owes thanks to the straight allies, and I appreciate you weighing in on this /. discussion to speak your mind.
I realize this isn't the main point of your post, but if you're doing it right there shouldn't be any blood...
I'm a trans woman, coupled with an Eastern European Jewish ancestry, so I kind of lost the body hair lottery. But I'm a huge fan of laser hair removal. The way I've come to describe it? Expensive, painful, and awesome. If you have a medium skin tone and dark body hair, it works exceptionally well.
Awesome use of scare quotes, but repealing DADT still leaves trans people in the dust. Ignoring the fact that (as someone mentioned below) trans people and gay people aren't the same thing (it's a Venn diagram with some overlap, just like straight and trans have some overlap) the US military will still be discriminating against trans people. Don't worry.
(How preventing a trans person like myself, with a tech background and a desire to serve her country, from entering military service helps keep our country safe is a whole different issue.),
PS - Is anyone else having trouble with the comment box? I wasn't able to paste properly,
As someone who is a fan of the Enthusiastic Consent model, I think you're misrepresenting its goals. Specifically...
The idea of Enthusiastic Consent is not to rewrite rape legislation out of whole cloth. Rather, it's to create a social movement where the healthy expectation is that sex should only occur between two people who enthusiastically consent to the activity. To use your example, saying "It's OK, everybody does it" isn't and shouldn't be rape. But I'd sure say it's an ethically questionable way to get someone in bed with you. Likewise for exploiting a relationship status, likewise for using somebodies social expectations of casual sexual encounters to pressure them into sex. Again, none of those situations are rape but they're all situations in which the consent of one party was not given enthusiastically.
And as a woman who really enjoys having sex, surrounded by friends - male and female - who also enjoy having sex, why would I want any of us to be having sex that wasn't consented to with enthusiasm!? Why would you ever want that for yourself, or your friends, or your children? There are enough things in my life that I'm only blase about, sex shouldn't be one of them. And so no, Enthusiastic Consent does not mean that the situations you list somehow are transformed into rape. It does mean that they're indicative of a society which sees little wrong with unenthusiastic sexual encounters, and argues that that's a problem.
As a final note, you scoff at the idea of asking "is it OK if I touch you here?" "Is it OK if I kiss you there?" You don't get to decide what level of consent your partner has offered. And if you don't ask, you can't know for sure.
Wait, I'm _also_ in Andersonville (and am a trans lesbian who is always looking for more queer geeks). Email me and lets grab coffee at Kopi? :)
You raise a good point, and one I neglected to address: Claiming to be a victim does not, in fact, always mean you're actually a victim. Someone else on this thread gave the example of a woman drinking, giving explicit consent for sex, and then (when sober) rescinding that consent and calling it rape. In that, case, I'd agree that it's not, in fact, rape. (Whether or not the law would support my point of view.)
Now, I would suspect that the times where there isn't explicit consent vastly outweigh the times where there is rescinded consent, which is probably why the laws are weighted like that; in the favor of the one who is more likely to be the victim. But, unfortunately, I don't have any numbers to back that suspicion up, and statistical likelihood of rape is poor comfort to someone found guilty of a crime they (in my opinion) didn't commit.
Complicated issues, indeed...
I was skeptical of that claim, but it looks like you're mostly correct. For the lazy, women were 20 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted, but men were more than twice as likely to be victims of armed robbery, 2.5 times more likely for aggravated assault, and 1.2 times more likely for simple assault. I'd argue about the wording of "several times greater" but that seems like nitpicking when the general point is sound.
What I don't know that I agree with is the role crime-avoidant behavior plays in those numerical differences. I can't find any studies on the subject, but I'd love to see one. I agree, in general, that victim-avoidant behavior and the overwhelming likelihood the violent crime offender is male account for those differences, but I'm really not sure by how much.
And I don't think any of that changes my original point, that victim-blaming is a bad thing. (radtea, I don't think you were saying this, I just want to make myself clear.)
Well-said. I've started (and deleted) a number of counter-arguments to other points in your post, but it seems like you're willing to concede my general premise: the one ultimately responsible for wrongdoing is the one committing the wrong act, even if the victim did not take steps to lessen their desirability as a target. It does sound like we would argue to what extent those steps (or lack thereof) should be taken into account when thinking about or analyzing the victim, but that's a different discussion than what I felt Runnaway1956 was saying, which seemed to drift into victim-blaming. (I'd also say it's a more fruitful discussion, even though the difference between victim-blaming and judging someone for poor behavior is usually a matter of perspective.)
-Trillian
PS - Probably won't forget the difference between lessen and lesson anytime soon... ;)
US law doesn't always work that way
First, I would argue that rape and sex offender laws throughout the country are - from my limited knowledge and exposure to them - pretty ridiculous and inconsistent. You provide a good example, where someone could - in completely good faith - done everything in their power to be assured of consent, but nevertheless be charged with rape for factors out of their control. That's pretty stupid, and I hope a judge would have the cool-headedness to allow that information to play a part in any verdict.
However, I don't think your example counters my original point: the ultimate responsibility for wrong-doing lies with the one who committed the wrong act. And I can provide an example where the law does work that way, as a law in Florida says that the clothing of the victim cannot be admitted as evidence in a rape trial. More to the point, clothing can't be shown as justification for rape.
And that's my point: making potentially poor choices (for example, wearing revealing clothing in a dangerous neighborhood) does not excuse rape. Making poor social choices at school does not excuse bullying.
-Trillian
Spot on, and I'm sorry if my post came off a little strong. If I'm beaten to death because I'm trans - something that has a higher chance of happening than I like to think about - it doesn't do me much good to posthumously be declared 'not at fault' for my death. At the same time, I think there is a difference between the individual level and the societal level of responsibility. That is, on an individual level, yes - most people can do things to reduce their chance of victimization in $SITUATION. But, on the level of social and cultural expectations, there's a danger of that attitude drifting toward victim-blaming, which is what I think Runnaway1956 was doing.
There is, in my opinion, a fine line between advocacy or individual empowerment on the one hand, and blaming people who are victims on the other.
::grin:: No argument here. I just wanted to note that I fit the demographics who might be expected to completely dismiss Runnaway1956's point. I hope I didn't come across as doing so, as taking steps to reduce one's victimization is something any sane individual should do. But I feel very strongly that there's a difference between promoting safer, stronger behavior in potential victims and blaming victims for their misfortune.