Feminism Catch-All (with FAQ)

No worries. Done here.

Regarding kickstarter, it seems like they need some way to freeze a campaign that is under review. I like their apology, but I can't help feeling like they shouldn't have gotten painted into that particular corner in the first place.

complexmath wrote:

Regarding kickstarter, it seems like they need some way to freeze a campaign that is under review. I like their apology, but I can't help feeling like they shouldn't have gotten painted into that particular corner in the first place.

Maybe that is something they will look at along with the other changes they already implemented. As a system change it would take a lot more time to change than the policy of not allowing similar kickstarters. They might not have mentioned such a thing because it would need a real development review and possibly a legal review before they embarked on it.

Apparently the backlash may have had more of an impact than just getting the book a bunch of positive/negative attention -

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=...

“Ben Kassoy of DoSomething.Org, a non-profit that encourages social change, reached out to me,” he says, “...to provide alternate opinions and insights to help remove all of the potentially harmful advice.”

Hoinsky realizes he needed to “seriously evaluate every last word of my writing to make sure I wasn't encouraging sexual assault in any way, shape, or form.”

“I am proud to say that his was the first of many meetings I will be having with anti-rape and anti-abuse organizations and experts to make sure that the advice I am offering is free of any tinge of sexual assault or rape vibes,” he added. “I will be rewriting Above The Game under their guidance and insight.”

On one hand, I like to see someone who is willing to step back and say, in effect, "I was wrong and I need to change my perspective."

On the other hand, it's exceptionally difficult for me to feel like someone could write that outline and those chapter abstracts and have no idea what they were contributing to - or, with such an attitude, care. And, as people might have noted on previous threads on this and other topics here, I am usually [/b]very[/b] willing to give people the benefit of the doubt in the "I didn't really fathom what I was doing" category. So I'm optimistic but also worried he's going to screw up everyone's sense of goodwill over this.

I have a reserve of goodwill this week, so I am rooting for this.

The concept of " no means yes" is pervasive enough that I do think many people think if it as reality, even now.

And let's not forget, this is a dumbfoundingly complicated area. We have a sexuality thread going on right now about women's hidden fantasies, and one of those fantasies does sometimes include "no means yes."

Getting the nuance between fantasy and reality is a journey we as a species continue to explore.

Seth wrote:

I have a reserve of goodwill this week, so I am rooting for this.

The concept of " no means yes" is pervasive enough that I do think many people think if it as reality, even now.

And let's not forget, this is a dumbfoundingly complicated area. We have a sexuality thread going on right now about women's hidden fantasies, and one of those fantasies does sometimes include "no means yes."

Getting the nuance between fantasy and reality is a journey we as a species continue to explore.

Right, and I'm definitely willing to give the benefit of the doubt in most cases. But this guy's writing and attitude were so blatant in their aggression and objectification, I'm more willing to accept, "Yes I'm aware and don't give a damn," than "oh man I never saw it." While there's definitely people out there who just don't realize the damage they're doing (and I think this is the case more often than not), there are plenty of folks who just embrace the idea of treating women as objects. As I said, I'm perfectly willing to be wrong here, but goddamn.

Ron Lindsay Apologizes (Skepchick)

After a month and a half of officially looking into its and non-apology apologies and the like, resulting eventually in some prominent people publicly pulling their support from CFI, the CEO finally apologized.

I'm not sure I understand why a "no means yes" fantasy is confusing. The existence of such a fantasy is no more an implication of consent than the way someone dresses.

NSMike wrote:

I'm not sure I understand why a "no means yes" fantasy is confusing. The existence of such a fantasy is no more an implication of consent than the way someone dresses.

It's why the good Lord saw fit to create safe words.

NSMike wrote:

I'm not sure I understand why a "no means yes" fantasy is confusing. The existence of such a fantasy is no more an implication of consent than the way someone dresses.

I think you answered your own question, here.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
NSMike wrote:

I'm not sure I understand why a "no means yes" fantasy is confusing. The existence of such a fantasy is no more an implication of consent than the way someone dresses.

It's why the good Lord saw fit to create safe words.

It's also why 50 Shades of Grey has sold 70 million copies.

On a related note, the Point of Inquiry team quits the CFI

Basically, they appreciate the apology from Lindsay, but are not able to continue to work for CFI, since there was no real organizational response.

Seth wrote:
NSMike wrote:

I'm not sure I understand why a "no means yes" fantasy is confusing. The existence of such a fantasy is no more an implication of consent than the way someone dresses.

I think you answered your own question, here.

What I'm saying is, among a group of people who already understand that dressing a certain way isn't consent, a "no means yes" fantasy should be no more difficult a logical obstacle.

Here is a more in depth interview with him, personally I think he comes across as quite genuine and is doing all he can to right his wrongs and engaging in the conversation, instead of just running away from it.

Did I miss it or did he never provide a reasonable context for 'aggressively escalating physical contact'?

Pretty sure he means aggresively in the sense of "with marked rapidity" as opposed to "with aggression and anger". Very Poor choice of words in the context of the advice being given though

Given the rest of the quote we have he means pushing the boundary HARD much harder than I would think was appropriate. I think a lot of women would be very uncomfortable with what he proposes there. You have a whole article talking about how it is out of context... and no context is provided for one of the two quotes.
Nor do I buy the articles free speech / books are harmless stupid kickstarter angle.

Anyone have a recap on what happened tonight in Austin for those who didn't stay up? I'm toast.

Latest is it's been defeated.

Turns out the female body DOES have ways of shutting things down. Go Wendy.

KHALEESI

Edwin wrote:

Anyone have a recap on what happened tonight in Austin for those who didn't stay up? I'm toast.

They came within 120 seconds of passing it.

When the vote was called after the midnight deadline, I had immediate flashbacks to 2011 Wisconsin Act 10, which was also passed illegally, but in our case the state Supreme Court upheld it, in a tortuous ruling that held the rules of the legislature were more like guidelines than actual laws, in spite of being a part of the Wisconsin legal code.

Really thought Texas was headed down a similar road, and am relieved they manage to dodge a bullet (though of course, there are still more bullets to come).

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Anyone have a recap on what happened tonight in Austin for those who didn't stay up? I'm toast.

They came within 120 seconds of passing it.

When the vote was called after the midnight deadline, I had immediate flashbacks to 2011 Wisconsin Act 10, which was also passed illegally, but in our case the state Supreme Court upheld it, in a tortuous ruling that held the rules of the legislature were more like guidelines than actual laws, in spite of being a part of the Wisconsin legal code.

Really thought Texas was headed down a similar road, and am relieved they manage to dodge a bullet (though of course, there are still more bullets to come).

It hasn't gone to the state Supreme Court yet, so... we'll see. If history has shown us anything, it's that the Texas governing body is actually very likely to act in the way described above - "Laws are well and good, but they're more like guidelines when we feel they got in the way of what the GOP majority wants."

Amoebic wrote:

KHALEESI

Win.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/hPX6G3E.jpg)

Where can I get a tiny pet shoulder dragon?

DanB wrote:

Where can I get a tiny pet shoulder dragon?

Swap one for an army of eunuchs.

Or visit Alaspin.

Even when filibuster is used for good as in this case, it still seems quite sad that the option to obstruct the legislation in this way exists in the first place.

No. Crap like this law is why the filibuster exists. It's an important balance to the tyranny of the majority that comes from this sort of parliamentary system. It's not meant to "stop" legislation and it really hasn't here. If you can pull it off, it's meant to make the legislative body go through one more hoop to make it clear that not everyone agrees with them. SB5 will be ready and waiting for next session.

Texas actually does it the old-school way. Several times over the years, the federal filibuster rules have been lightened to the point that really all they have to do is say they're going to do it. That's where you end up with the kind of crap that's been going on these last several sessions of Congress. In one very famous instance, a senator read a phone book for hours. In Texas, you have to stay on topic and really work for it.

They just passed a Federal senate rule for this year and next that the majority leader has the power to forbid a filibuster (check Sen. Res. 15 and Sen. Res. 16 from the 112th Congress). That's the kind of sh*t they're designed to stop.

momgamer wrote:

Texas actually does it the old-school way. Several times over the years, the federal filibuster rules have been lightened to the point that really all they have to do is say they're going to do it. That's where you end up with the kind of crap that's been going on these last several sessions of Congress. In one very famous instance, a senator read a phone book for hours. In Texas, you have to stay on topic and really work for it.

My wife and I were talking about this last night and I actually thought the TX rule was a newer version designed to prevent things like reading the phone book. I had no idea it was the other way around.

Ron Lindsay's Apology wrote:

I am sorry that I caused offense with my talk. I am also sorry I made some people feel unwelcome as a result of my talk. From the letters sent to me and the board, I have a better understanding of the objections to the talk.

I am also sorry that my talk and my actions subjected my colleagues and the organization to which I am devoted to criticism.

Please accept my apologies.

Conspicuously absent: "I am sorry for saying the things in my talk that caused offense."

"I'm sorry you're mad" isn't an apology.