Can I be a feminist and 'one of the guys'?

[TerraPrime]

On the other hand, in modern hebrew slang "vaginish" when spoken about a woman means "hot"/"sexy/"beautiful" and is an accepted term for all but the old/language fanatics/rabid feminists. With a slight change to the masculine it can also apply to a man.

Are we going to wage war on language now?

I am saying we are trying to do too much to combat sexual harassment and we should cut back and not allow unfounded claims of sexual harassment to be made and thus fewer innocent men should be made to squirm quite a bit in a lot of instances.

I have no response.

But I do think those words need to be seen again, in case others didn't notice them in the first place.

[Guest Raidne]

In any other sort of crime, one "doesn't get asked to defend oneself" until the prosecution has evidence sufficient for conviction. Then they still have to prove it.

Well, I don't know how it works in Israel, but in the United States you have to present evidence sufficient to state a claim to file a lawsuit. And then, after that, you don't get to go to trial until you prove that you have a general factual dispute, looking at all the available evidence.

In a sexual harassment suit, that usually means that you don't even get to file suit until you can prove that you presented the issue to your superiors and they did not undertake sufficient action to combat the harassment. Furthermore, you then have to take your case before the relevant administrative board, and see what they have to say about it. Then, if you disagree with their solution, you can take it to court. I'm a little rusty on the administrative part, so if Lev needs to correct me on the EEOC's role, thanks in advance.

So, I think what you're probably talking about is the internal private investigation by the company. And yes, companies often freak out and overreact due to a poor understanding of what their obligations are. Here, they are often required to move the accussed harasser, possibly to a different department and certainly to a different location, until the investigation is completed. And that does happen just based on the bare accusation. So that would be the only point I think you might have, and it's very specific to US law, so I doubt it's what you meant.

Other than that, there are layers and layers and layers of process to protect the accused, who will more likely than not never have to appear in court, or consider themselves sued. Because, you know, it will be the company that gets sued anyway. You get that part, right?

Wait. You've discovered a way to prevent people making unfounded claims?

This could seriously revolutionise not just criminal justice, but society itself. A method by which nobody can ever be accused of something they didn't do!

Disappointingly, you forgot to mention how it works, exactly. Could you explain further?

Also, this. But here, I gotta say, I think we've done a pretty good job with that.

[Samalander]

That's simply not true, or people would never be found innocent once things went to court.

Almost never. The percent of people found innocent once things go to court in Israel is around 4 or less. This isn't USA with its jury system.

Wait. You've discovered a way to prevent people making unfounded claims?

This could seriously revolutionise not just criminal justice, but society itself. A method by which nobody can ever be accused of something they didn't do!

Disappointingly, you forgot to mention how it works, exactly. Could you explain further?

Unfounded claims of any other sort of crime carry with them zero consequences to the accused. Not so in this instance.

We can start by charging women filing false claims as criminals. That would be a start. And by false I mean lying, not just misunderstanding.

a. You really want to go there? fine.

עזוב אני לא אתחיל על מה הבעייתיות ב"כוסית" כי זה כבר באמת מושרש (מה שלא מבטל את הבעייתיות אבל הופך את זה בלתקוף תחנות רוח כשבאמת יש ענקים באזור)

המילה הייתה "פות", ומדי פעם גם "כוס" (שזו עדיין מילה גסה בכל צורה בעברית, ובכלל איננה על משקל "כוסית" מבחינת רמת שימוש)

b. And yes, if its relevant, we will absoloutely wage a war on language now.

c. I also have no idea how thats relevant to your statement that the pendulum has gone too far.

a. I told you to slap him, didn't I?

b. History has proven that to be impossible, time and again.

c. Free speech is important to some people. Where exactly does one draw the line from criminal to the very subjective "I don't like what you said just now and how you said it and I'm gonna report you".

Online translation says:

I will not forget what the problems in "inflammatory" because it really is rooted (which eliminates the problem but turns it from attacking wind stations when you really have giants in the region)

The word was "cunt", and occasionally "Cup" (this is still a dirty word in any form in Hebrew, not including the weight of "glass" in terms of level of use)"

:lol:

a. Quite a lot? Do you have any figures? Do you think that more people are targets of unfounded claims than are victims of sexual assault?

b. Do you think that both things are roughly equivalent so that if the numbers of each were roughly the same it would be balanced out?

c. Do you not think that the, frankly stunning, prevalence of sexual assault and rape is something that causes many orders of magnitude more harm than a few people suffering from unfounded claims, the vast majority of which I expect would be dismissed rather promptly?

a. No, but it happens, more than onle likes to think about. You can look it up on the web if you like.

b. Not sure I understand what you are saying, but to me 50% false accusations sounds way too high.

c. Difficult question. If you are asking me if I would like to see more rapists convicted than going free, obviously I want them behind bars. However, sexual harassment laws are affecting the whole of society, not just the criminals and victims. It affects how people act in the workplace, and not always in a good way. We just had a very high profile conviction of someone last year for kissing a woman. He didn't use any force or threaten her in any way. She wasn't beholden to him or anything. Is this the world we want - Kiss a woman and get convicted a sexual offender?

...and yet another feminism thread goes back to discussing the guys, whose problems are so much more important. Yes, false accusations are a problem; no, that is not the point of this thread. Go start your own one if you really want to.

I think false accusations certainly do fall under the perview of this thread. But, as I see we have a moderator in our midst, we shall leave that up to his good judgement.

YES. ABSOLUTELY. Because cutting back on measures to combat sexual harassment will somehow lessen it. Think of the poor innocent men squirming. Never mind the fact that it's still a prevalent practice in many workplaces (and that not all victims are women, but they are the huge majority of it) and that much of its is unreported and wasn't acted on.

All I'm saying, all I have been saying, is mind how you are going about it!!! The current climate is spreading paranoia into the hearts of men.

[Xray the Enforcer]

He didn't use any force or threaten her in any way. She wasn't beholden to him or anything. Is this the world we want - Kiss a woman and get convicted a sexual offender?

Yes. If she didn't want to be kissed, then he violated her. It's that simple.

[Samalander]

So, I think what you're probably talking about is the internal private investigation by the company. And yes, companies often freak out and overreact due to a poor understanding of what their obligations are. Here, they are often required to move the accussed harasser, possibly to a different department and certainly to a different location, until the investigation is completed. And that does happen just based on the bare accusation. So that would be the only point I think you might have, and it's very specific to US law, so I doubt it's what you meant.

Not sure it's so specific to US law anymore. The way the US goes the world follows. So, all a woman has to do is say "boo" and a guy gets ousted from his current position? Am I the only one that finds this problematic?

[Samalander]

Yes. If she didn't want to be kissed, then he violated her. It's that simple.

Shouldn't she convey her dis-want in any way? Are we supposed to make women sign consent to be kissed forms now (a few of which I had seen floating around, as a joke)?

[KAH]

Almost never. The percent of people found innocent once things go to court in Israel is around 4 or less. This isn't USA with its jury system.

Regarding things that go to court - Israel sounds rather like Japan. And in this case, that's not a compliment.

[Samalander]

Regarding things that go to court - Israel sounds rather like Japan. And in this case, that's not a compliment.

Or it means the prosecution never files if they don't think they can convict. But this is most definately a different kind of thread.

[Datepalm]

We can start by charging women filing false claims as criminals. That would be a start. And by false I mean lying, not just misunderstanding.

All I'm saying, all I have been saying, is mind how you are going about it!!! The current climate is spreading paranoia into the hearts of men.

Poor men. My heart bleeds for you, becuase i'm a leftist like that.

Should...I dunno...women who falsely accuse completely innocent men of rape be held responsible legally in some way? Sure. Its a long way from there (and don't give me any slippery slopes) to saying society, at large, gives women's accusations of harrasment too much credence.

Sam - Which case are we talking about here? I wish we just had the one extremely powerful politician who was accused of not-harrasing his secretary, who had no power imbalance with him at all.

I will not forget what the problems in "inflammatory" because it really is rooted (which eliminates the problem but turns it from attacking wind stations when you really have giants in the region)

The word was "cunt", and occasionally "Cup" (this is still a dirty word in any form in Hebrew, not including the weight of "glass" in terms of level of use)"

Lol thats hilarious. And actually contradicting what I wrote in some instances. And it managed to somehow translate "cuntish" once into "inflammatory " and once into "glass" (Google cannot suss out missing diacretics! Yes!) What I said was that I will ignore the common use of "cuntish" becuase its tilting at windmills, and "cunt" as well as "vagina" carries a completely different weight from it as a bad word, still.

Ugh. I'm tired of typing these words.

[zollo]

Shouldn't she convey her dis-want in any way? Are we supposed to make women sign consent to be kissed forms now (a few of which I had seen floating around, as a joke)?

Right, so it was her fault, is that it? Wouldn't have happened if she simply had "conveyed her dis-want". Such an elegant solution to a major global issue. Pity I didn't think of it myself first.

[Samalander]

1) Should...I dunno...women who falsely accuse completely innocent men of rape be held responsible legally in some way? Sure.

2) Sam - Which case are we talking about here? I wish we just had the one extremely powerful politician who was accused of not-harrasing his secretary, who had no power imbalance with him at all.

1) They don't like doing that. They think it will scare off real victims so they just don't do that.

2) Yes, the mildly powerful politician and the female soldier (not sure she was a secretary) who was not in any way subordinate to him in the chain of command. Do you think that was a kosher conviction?

[Samalander]

Right, so it was her fault, is that it? Wouldn't have happened if she simply had "conveyed her dis-want". Such an elegant solution to a major global issue. Pity I didn't think of it myself first.

So why dont we just legislate it? Make it a law - you want to kiss a woman you have to ask her first. Yeah, that doesn't change anything at all in the interplay of society.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

We just had a very high profile conviction of someone last year for kissing a woman. He didn't use any force or threaten her in any way. She wasn't beholden to him or anything. Is this the world we want - Kiss a woman and get convicted a sexual offender?

Are you seriously suggesting that you can kiss any woman (or man) you want, and as long as they are no beholden to you or you don't hurt them, that this is ok? Seriously?

The first lesson I taught my son about girls was that you can't kiss them if they don't want you to. He was 5! (and it was his sister he was tackling and kissing, but the rule still applies)

Taught my daughter the same thing...then and when she started dating (16).

So tell me how it is adult men do not know that this is not ok?

[Samalander]

Are you seriously suggesting that you can kiss any woman (or man) you want, and as long as they are no beholden to you or you don't hurt them, that this is ok? Seriously?

The first lesson I taught my son about girls was that you can't kiss them if they don't want you to. He was 5! (and it was his sister he was tackling and kissing, but the rule still applies)

Taught my daughter the same thing...then and when she started dating (16).

So tell me how it is adult men do not know that this is not ok?

Obviously, he thought she wanted to. And she did nothing to dissuade him.

Are we supposed to be mind readers now?

[Xray the Enforcer]

Shouldn't she convey her dis-want in any way?

NO. NO NO and NO.

Should you always have to convey your dis-want of me kicking you in the nuts to prevent me from kicking you in the nuts? The answer, of course, is "NO." Similarly, women certainly don't and shouldn't have to constantly tell men to keep their fucking hands, lips and all other body parts to themselves. Until someone gives consent, THERE IS NO CONSENT NOR SHOULD CONSENT BE INFERRED. This is not a tough concept.

If you ever end up in the same room as me, Samalander, you better be shouting "Xray! Don't kick me in the nuts!" at 5-minute intervals the entire time because, really, without that, I might just think you want me to kick your groin repeatedly. And in your bizarro world, I'd be totally justified in doing so. :smoking:

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Xray,

If you ever end up in the same room as me, Samalander, you better be shouting "Xray! Don't kick me in the nuts!" at 5-minute intervals the entire time because, really, without that, I might just think you want me to kick your groin repeatedly. And in your bizarro world, I'd be totally justified in doing so. :smoking:

With names deleted to protect those involved may I please sig this?

[Samalander]

NO. NO NO and NO.

Should you always have to convey your dis-want of me kicking you in the nuts to prevent me from kicking you in the nuts? The answer, of course, is "NO." Similarly, women certainly don't and shouldn't have to constantly tell men to keep their fucking hands, lips and all other body parts to themselves. Until someone gives consent, THERE IS NO CONSENT NOR SHOULD CONSENT BE INFERRED. This is not a tough concept.

If you ever end up in the same room as me, Samalander, you better be shouting "Xray! Don't kick me in the nuts!" at 5-minute intervals the entire time because, really, without that, I might just think you want me to kick your groin repeatedly. And in your bizarro world, I'd be totally justified in doing so. :smoking:

So, you want men to always ask women before kissing them if it's ok. And it should be legislated. So say it. Why don't you say it? There is no middle ground here. Something is either legal or not. The law should apply to everyone on equal basis.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Obviously, he thought she wanted to. And she did nothing to dissuade him.

Are we supposed to be mind readers now?

So women should be the mind readers and antisipate that a man is about to kiss them and dissuade them from doing so? Why not just make sure before you do it?

I wonder how many rapist claim this when first questioned?

[Samalander]

So women should be the mind readers and antisipate that a man is about to kiss them and dissuade them from doing so? Why not just make sure before you do it?

Again, you are saying all men should come out and ask women "is it ok if I kiss you now" and get at least a verbal consent before going on? Just to be clear.

[Yagathai]

Listen, sometimes you go for it. Sometimes you're wrong and it's awkward and it isn't assault. If you have a reasonable assumption that there's consent, and you stop when you realize there isn't consent, it's not a crime.

But.

Just because you think the assumption is reasonable doesn't mean that jury of your peers will agree.