|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: cover yourself girl, you're turning the boys on!
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Well, you've omitted her final paragraph that says:- quote:
I would want to say very strongly, however, that undermining boys and men simply because they are boys and men - if done as a serious political, economic and social exercise - is every bit as evil, wrongheaded and damaging as it was (and continues to be) when practised against the female sex.
- which looks unambiguous to me.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I see sarcasm, Twilight. But not delight. What I see in her words is the refutation that these lower scoring boys are at all disadvantaged. Her sarcasm was, IMO, directed at this.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Well, you've omitted her final paragraph that says:- quote:
I would want to say very strongly, however, that undermining boys and men simply because they are boys and men - if done as a serious political, economic and social exercise - is every bit as evil, wrongheaded and damaging as it was (and continues to be) when practised against the female sex.
- which looks unambiguous to me.
I'm replying to what she directed specifically at me. Mousethief got her to back pedal quite a bit and even there it's qualified with the "if done as a serious political, economic and social exercise." I think the first response, directed angrily at me for voicing concern about boys, was the gut level response -- thus the misandry.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
In the years I've been on the ship, the times my posts have caused an argument to come off the rails have always involved an attempt at sarcasm or irony. Both regularly involve saying something you don't mean in the literal sense. I try to avoid them these days for that reason. But I would reiterate that you have to look at the whole argument if you want to get the measure of what someone really means.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
This is disgusting. The school could be sued out of existence, because they must have had some ideas that this was occurring.
What guidelines should mixed sex boarding schools or colleges/ universities have when it comes to their students' sex lives? What punishments should be applied for a violation of these policies?
Personally I've been advocating for same-sex dorms and curfews but no one seems interested.
quote:
For the raping student in this case, the guidelines for criminal sentence for a penetration sex offence starts at ~4 years in my jurisdiction, with most sentenced to about 6, which is hardly enough. The sentence for the rape victim is lifetime. Incitement charges should be considered against everyone involved. No second chances, no leniency.
Now, I'm no fan of this particular cultural tradition - particularly since the age of consent in New Hampshire is 16, and you'd think someone would have pointed out that almost everyone engaging in this practice was in fact breaking the law.
I am, however, curious about your willingness to severely punish one person for what was obviously a common practice; what makes you comfortable making this person responsible for all the sins of the culture? Or does the desire to punish everyone who participated with incitement charges mitigate the goating of this student?
Do you have any sense of what you are calling for? In the US, the fact that the student was charged (regardless of what the verdict is) will likely ruin the rest of his life.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
An example must be set when it can be set. This is the principle of general deterance. Set an example and deter others from doing this. There was a rape. That is a very serius offence. Rape as an outcome if such a tradition is foreseeable.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
An example must be set when it can be set. This is the principle of general deterance. Set an example and deter others from doing this.
Deter others from doing what? Hooking up? Having sex? Trying to get as many notches in their bedpost as they can?
I repeat my question about boarding schools and colleges and what policies you would put in place to deter whatever you have determined to be unacceptable sexual activity.
quote:
There was a rape. That is a very serius offence. Rape as an outcome if such a tradition is foreseeable.
That has yet to be determined:
quote:
On cross-examination, the alleged victim conceded that she lifted up her arms so Labrie could take her shirt off and raised her hips so he could pull off her shorts. She also told the police, when they interviewed her soon after the incident, that “other than me saying no to the first part, I don’t think he would have known for a fact that I would not want to do that.”
The alleged victim and accused dispute whether penetration occurred. Unless the definition of rape has changed considerably, if there was no penetration, there was no rape.
What are you hoping others are going to learn as a result of this students' troubles?
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The alleged victim and accused dispute whether penetration occurred. Unless the definition of rape has changed considerably, if there was no penetration, there was no rape.
What are you hoping others are going to learn as a result of this students' troubles?
And a health care worker who examined the alleged victim at the time said there were signs of forceful penetration. So it's NOT just a he-said, she-said kind of deal. There's other evidence.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The alleged victim and accused dispute whether penetration occurred. Unless the definition of rape has changed considerably, if there was no penetration, there was no rape.
What are you hoping others are going to learn as a result of this students' troubles?
And a health care worker who examined the alleged victim at the time said there were signs of forceful penetration. So it's NOT just a he-said, she-said kind of deal. There's other evidence.
In the quoted link, the health care worker is quoted as saying there was a laceration that would be consistent with penetration having occurred. That's far from saying that there was penetration, or that it was forceful. What will be relevant though, is the evidence at trial.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The misandry charge was aimed more at Anselmina who took such delight in the idea of today's boys doing poorly, (be it right or wrong) as revenge for unequal pay and 6000 years of male oppression. It's like saying that educated white women like Anselmina shouldn't get those high salaries, since they're still making more money than the average black person, who has been oppressed for the same 6000 years.
As you don't seem to know the first thing about me, Twilight, I'll treat your accusations of misandry and 'revenge' wish-fulfilment with the contempt they deserve. I can only assume you either have an unconscious predisposition to misconstrue my posts, or a private agenda against myself, in posting such despicable tripe. Either way, your problem, not mine.
I don't think there's anything by way of sarcasm impeding my clear meaning. So when I write that it is wrong for children - boys or girls - to be undermined in their education or social progress simply because they are boys or girls, any reasonable reader can assume that's what I precisely intend to be understood. My stance on justice alone would compel me to abhor and stand against the very idea that boys in the classroom, or at home being socialized, are being put down simply because they are boys.
I will admit that it could be argued I've drawn a rather broad comparison between the recent-day difficulties some boys and men of the modern world experience, in contrast to the millenias' worth of subjugation experienced (and still experienced) by women. But even a cursory glance at history by the dullest observer can result in that conclusion without assistance, so I'm hardly stating anything new. It might appear to a monochrome mind that this is somehow 'delighting' in the male sex 'getting what they deserve'. I don't think so. I think it's about understanding the context of the issue, learning from past injustices and mistakes, and by doing so ensuring it doesn't happen all over again to anyone else, female or male.
I'm tickled that you think I 'back-pedalled'. Suffice to say I responded to Mousethief as I would to any poster capable of presenting and understanding the nuances of this complex and emotive issue; with, I hope, in my answer to him some nuance and acknowledgement of this complexity.
And, JFTR, you're quite right to say I'm educated. At least, after a fashion. If I can persist with my current part-time studies with the Open University, I will gain by 2019 my first and probably my last ever degree. My diploma in theology was obviously necessary for ordination, during my early thirties. When I left school in 1982 at age 16, I had 3 O Levels and the benefit of the careers advice all girls like me got: 'you can type, so get an office job'.
High salaries? Currently, I'm unemployed and because I'm not eligible for any benefits, am enjoying an income of precisely zero pounds, zero pence. And my previous job brought in the princely sum of about £150 per week. When I get over this illness, and return to working life, I'll earn even less. But I have to stress these are my choices (more or less), and I'm not complaining in the least. I'm actually in not a bad place at the moment. And am rather enjoying the freedom of my situation.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Ah, very disingenuous, Anselmina. Asking why I'm singling you out when you called me out by name first over worrying about the boys being told they were less than, then claiming not to be sarcastic by quoting a very different post than the one that seemed sarcastic to me, i.e. this one: quote:
And it would seem that once these poor, undermined, under-educated boys get their job, they still get paid more for it than women, and find their way more easily into more powerful and lucrative positions than women, too. Gee, that must hurt!! [Roll Eyes]
I was under the impression that you were pastor of an Anglican church, so I admit I got that wrong.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I do not want to be unnecessarily annoying, but the laws of different states in the US vary on the precise definition and terminology of sexual assault. It's not clear to me from the postings if we are talking about New Hampshire law.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Ah, very disingenuous, Anselmina. Asking why I'm singling you out when you called me out by name first over worrying about the boys being told they were less than, then claiming not to be sarcastic by quoting a very different post than the one that seemed sarcastic to me, i.e. this one: quote:
And it would seem that once these poor, undermined, under-educated boys get their job, they still get paid more for it than women, and find their way more easily into more powerful and lucrative positions than women, too. Gee, that must hurt!! [Roll Eyes]
I was under the impression that you were pastor of an Anglican church, so I admit I got that wrong.
Where did I claim not to use sarcasm? I remember saying that there was nothing by way of sarcasm to prevent someone understanding the clear meaning of my posts. Perhaps you've read this statement as meaning something else. Maybe despite my wish for clarity, I wasn't clear enough.
With regard to the quote above, yes, I was waspish over your, in my opinion, over-simplistic analysis of that particular situation. I could almost hear the weeping violin in the background! And you don't have to take that as an insult about your debating technique, you know! You can just accept it as my perception of what you wrote, and tell yourself my perception is rubbish.
So, yes,I thought your post was lacking perspective and context, which is why the quote above included a link which I hoped would add a little balance. But I was also clear in asserting that a real problem existed and should be addressed. It is possible to admit how vitally important something is without over-stating one side of the debate at the expense of the other side, which is what I thought you were doing.
And did I really ask why are you singling me out? I wasn't aware that you were. I see that I've given an opinion - admittedly speculative - as to why you seem unable to construe my posts correctly. Am I being disingenous? I'm not sure I can honestly say 'no' to that accusation. I don't think so, but we're all good sometimes at deceiving ourselves.
There's no reason why you should've known I had 'retired' from full-time stipendiary ministry. I'm not sure a Church of England vicar's stipend would qualify as a 'high salary'! But it is quite true that as a Church of Ireland Rector - my last full-time post - earning well over £10,000 more, I would've considered that as 'high'.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Twilight/Anselmina
Both of you are getting too personal. Please stick to the issue here. Personal irritation (whether you are expressing it or trying to provoke it) belongs in Hell.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
do the boys have to watch what they wear to prevent the girls getting aroused?
No, they have to watch what they wear to avoid dirty old men getting aroused. Or at least, it seems they do, even when it is impractical. No more abbreviated Speedos. Swimwear is reminiscent of photos from 100 years ago. "Shorts" now go down almost to the knees or even lower.
Mind you, I've never heard of a boy actually voicing this rationale. They just wear what is sold in the stores, or what their friends wear, or what their parents buy for them. (I was often indifferent to what I wore at that age and didn't enjoy shopping for clothes). But I have no doubt that the fashion industry is quietly playing upon such fears with these changes in the past 10-15 years.
Might as well impose it on the girls, too.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I don't know about "playing upon such fears," at least with regards to Speedos. I've simply never met a woman who enjoyed looking at them, no matter how well built the guy is, and fashion tends to respond to that. If my group was representative, then it's not surprising the fashion would change.
And it isn't fashion driving me to say so, either--I've been idly talking about Speedos on and off with my girlfriends for forty years, and the consensus has never changed. Yecch. Anecdata, of course.
[ 29. September 2015, 13:09: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
What guidelines should mixed sex boarding schools or colleges/ universities have when it comes to their students' sex lives?
Schoolchildren are mostly underage, and even for those who are over the age of consent, there are often significant power differentials that make consent difficult. No sex, and strict segregation of sleeping quarters by sex, is I think the expectation of the parents of schoolchildren.
Of course, kids will be kids, and sex will be had. If they get caught, they should be suspended or expelled just like they would for any other serious breach of school rules (assuming there are no criminal charges in play).
College students are adults. They get to have whatever sex they want, and the university should have no rules about it at all.
I would not have chosen to live in a same-sex dorm, as I'm not particularly interested in the laddish frat-house culture that tends to develop in those places. Some of my female friends preferred to live in women-only areas; some didn't.
quote:
Personally I've been advocating for same-sex dorms and curfews but no one seems interested.
Because undergraduates are adults.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Mind you, I've never heard of a boy actually voicing this rationale. They just wear what is sold in the stores, or what their friends wear, or what their parents buy for them.
All the high school boys who are on swimming teams own speedos - it's what they wear to race in. None of them ever wear them otherwise, and I have often heard them precisely claiming not wanting to have their lunchbox on display as the reason. (It's more about girls and the other boys seeing them than pervy old men, though.) I know a few boys who are fine swimmers, but don't take part in high school swimming because they don't want to wear speedos.
Personally (as a swimmer with all the sleek elegance and efficiency of a sack of bricks), I wear speedos to swim, because I don't like the feeling of swimming with cloth around my thighs. I'm pretty much guaranteed to get sniggers from groups of teenage girls.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
From a former high school girl's perspective, Speedos are just plain embarrassing. They draw the eye whether one wants to look or not, and then the blushes and giggling start. Nobody needs that. The closest thing I can compare it to is girls wearing tight, tight, tight trousers of the camel's toe variety. Just blind me now.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Speedos?
Try Yoga pants for the girls. Some of them are very revealing.
And around the university shorts that reveal butt cheeks are quite common (as least here in America)
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
