Feminism Catch-All (with FAQ)

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.

momgamer wrote:

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.

What is going to stop a group of people who are determined enough, to repeat this every single time the law they oppose is coming up.

Serious question: Why is it someone else cant just speak for hours after the first one gives up? It sounded like she was prevented from continuing at some point, with 'noise makers' carrying the torch the rest of the way.
But couldn't you split the filibuster up between multiple people?

In case you missed last night's Texas chaos, this is a fantastic writeup of what happened & why it mattered: https://medium.com/p/cb900fa4f14b

That was an amazing read; thanks Edwin!

Shadout wrote:
momgamer wrote:

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.

What is going to stop a group of people who are determined enough, to repeat this every single time the law they oppose is coming up.

Serious question: Why is it someone else cant just speak for hours after the first one gives up? It sounded like she was prevented from continuing at some point, with 'noise makers' carrying the torch the rest of the way.
But couldn't you split the filibuster up between multiple people?

If the majority is doing things that polarize the situation that badly and that people disagree enough to make this sort of statement, then it would behoove them to do exactly that. It's their job. I know I'm reading between the lines here, but I think you're confusing part of this with what we call a veto, which really does kill the bill, but that comes from the governor/president after it's been passed, not the floor. And even that can be overturned by voting.

This was a rather unique circumstance where doing it at just that moment could effect the most delay and make the biggest statement. In the course of regular events, all it does is mean they have to table it long enough to re-present it, and vote again. It's a couple days work, they've made their point, and then it's in the hands of someone deciding to take it to court. When that happens, you get stuff like the overturning of California's Prop. 8. It takes a heck of a long time, though.

This isn't anyone's first choice. This is frelling hard. And it costs the person who uses it in political capital both within the legislative body and their constituents. Someone already fire-bombed her office in Ft. Worth, and that was before the filibuster even succeeded. If it's abused, it can draw censure and monetary fines from the regulatory bodies, in this case it would the Texas Senate Ethics Committee.

Nope - no substitutes. It has to be one person. They get no breaks at all, not even to sit down; they have to stand completely unsupported the whole time. They have to talk the whole time. In Texas, they have to talk about the bill and nothing else. They have three chances for someone to catch them in a derail, and each one of them brings multiple opportunities for the opposition to kill the filibuster. They have to vote if whatever the person said was actually off topic, then when the third strike happens, they get to vote for cloture.

The 13 hour "time limit" people have been talking about wasn't imposed on her by rules, but by how long was left in the session from when she started. They can keep it up, to the extent their physical body can stand there and keep talking without even a potty break. The only way the person filibustering can get even a partial break is if someone manages to get a cloture vote on the floor and the person can stop talking (but not sit down) while they sort it out.

That's what you saw last night. She was actually prevented from continuing almost 2 hours early. The Lt. Governor, who is the head of the Texas senate much the same way Vice President Biden is the head of the U.S. Senate, decided that she'd mentioned something that wasn't germane (despite the fact that the subject in question was part of the provisions of the bill) and counted that as her third strike.

Problem is, one of the other two "strikes" wasn't actually about the topic - it was about an instance where someone helped her straighten a back-brace she was wearing so it constituted a violation of the physical standing with no help/support from her colleagues rules. Her colleagues called B.S. on that, the whole floor had a good old argument as to whether or not her derail constituted a strike, then they got into it about whether or not that counted as the third strike for derailing (by their rules, it should have only been the 2nd).

Then once the Republicans got that declared by some serious skullduggery by the Lt. Gov and some of their members, they had to get a motion to vote on cloture on the floor. Said skullduggery was so blatant even they barely managed to get five people from their side to second that in writing. Then they all had to argue that out. Once they finally got the motion filed, they started calling roll at like five minutes 'til. That's when the crowd figured out something was up and started raising Cain. They kept it up until several minutes after midnight.

There was a lot of confusion among the watchers, and the Senate as well. That roll call was the cloture vote, not the bill. Their rules require that it be a roll call vote (it's sort of like taking attendance at school). They got that done, and then they started in on the actual bill, which due to the rules also had to be a roll call vote a second time through. They completed that while people were yelling. The vote on the bill was entered into the system at 12:02, which was after the official end of the session.

To bring this back into a feminist vein, I think it's important to point out here how blatant the misogyny on the Senate floor was. All the women who were there were ignored, marginalized, and talked over so many times. They took it for hours until Sen. Van de Putte lost her temper so eloquently.

Even that parliamentarian trying to help the Lt. Governor keep things straight got the dirty end of the stick where he would cut her off.

That's the reality most women face trying to get anything done. This is what we've been trying to say here, over and over.

*sigh*

Rick "dumbass" Perry is calling another special session to take up the bill again.

JC wrote:

*sigh*

Rick "dumbass" Perry is calling another special session to take up the bill again.

As expected. Now he's got 30 days to get it from the floor through a vote. And the opposition have 30 more days to change hearts and minds and fight it.

And I'm sure someone is already drafting the first lawsuits about it, too.

So some of you may know the name Emily Morganti if you have ever written on games. She goes to spam now, because I have not done that kind of writing in well over 5 years. I think she got my info when I got put on the press list for Telltale.

Anyhow she is also now PR consulting for some events relevant here.

http://www.iamagamer.ca/

http://www.siliconsisters.ca/ - oddly enough not pornography.

Jammin' for Change: July 12-14 Game Jam Will Challenge Gender Stereotypes in Gaming
150 developers, designers, artists, and students will create games with female protagonists in first ever iamagamer event in Vancouver, B.C.

VANCOUVER, B.C. - June 26, 2013 - iamagamer, a new organization that arranges game jams around social causes, seeks to challenge gender stereotypes in gaming with their inaugural event kicking off July 12 in Vancouver, Canada. This collaborative development marathon will bring together game developers, designers, artists, and students to create video games with female protagonists, from scratch, over a 48-hour period.

To be held at Vancouver's Centre for Digital Media, this unprecedented event will dispute the prevailing opinion that video games are for guys and that games with strong, female lead characters will not sell (as observed in a recent Gamasutra article), sending a message that such stereotypes are not only incorrect, but have a negative impact on the industry.

Since its initial announcement, the event has grown in popularity with several satellite sites around the world and many remote participants signing on, bringing total "jammers" to more than 150 worldwide. The organizers seek to create a fun, collaborative, and energy-filled opportunity for individuals in the video game industry and beyond to come together around a common cause and create something that they believe in.

For more information about iamagamer and the upcoming game jam, please visit: http://www.iamagamer.ca.

For more information about the motivations underlying the jam from the founder and organizer, please visit: http://zanytomato.tumblr.com

For the Gamasutra article referred to above, please visit: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1...

Visuals: More than 150 game designers, digital media artists, gamers and visionaries in one room, working on projects in real time (48 hours isn't very long to develop and complete a project!) passionate about equality in gaming. There will be lots of coffee, food and creative antics from the tired, but enthusiastic, participants. (There may even be participants snoozing.)

Interviews: Dr. Kimberly Voll, iamagamer Founder and Organizer and Senior Faculty, Centre for Digital Media. (Kimberly will additionally be on-site and can facilitate interviews with participants for media.)

When: Starting July 12 at 6 p.m. through July 14 at 6 p.m.

Where: Centre for Digital Media: 685 Great Northern Way

On-Site Contact: Kimberly Voll ([email protected], 778-996-2235)