Feminism, Mens Rights and Other Nonsense.

[Sabby]

Still waiting on the quote accusing anyone of being anti-women. "Hostile" is not "anti", necessarily.

Still fail to see the practical difference between the two.

The opposition to the proposed rules was with the way they were campaigned. No one is saying that Atheist gatherings shouldn't have harassment policies, but trying to add policies and acting the way in which these people have when asked why they should be accepted is what has kicked off the opposition.

[Kane]

Um. Not to insult your wife, but... again, we've got numerous, well-corroborated cases of outright assault by prominent figures. This isn't an issue requiring attention? What is?

They require attention, not special attention. They are not as numerous as people like to say they are. They are obviously an issue, but it's not something that requires massive measures to fix. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Secular movement is not as bad as you paint it to be in your posts. It has its issues, like every movement on the planet. We are working to fix it.

Last thing I'm going to say in-thread on the subject: If these issues aren't being swept under the carpet, why do known predators continue to hold prominent positions?

Lack of evidence. Lack of substantiated claims. Accusation does not equal crime. They might well be predators, but unfortunately, such cases can be very difficult to prove. If we 'out them' as predators without any evidence, we might be facing libel lawsuits, for example.

[Ephiral]

They require attention, not special attention. They are not as numerous as people like to say they are. They are obviously an issue, but it's not something that requires massive measures to fix. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Secular movement is not as bad as you paint it to be in your posts. It has its issues, like every movement on the planet. We are working to fix it.

My original point wasn't that it's necessarily worse than society in general. (I... am not sure whether I would uphold that, but it wasn't my stated position.) My point, which you disputed, was that it's not a safe space. It isn't. Neither is society in general. Safe spaces are the exception, not the rule.

Lack of evidence. Lack of substantiated claims. Accusation does not equal crime. They might well be predators, but unfortunately, such cases can be very difficult to prove. If we 'out them' as predators without any evidence, we might be facing libel lawsuits, for example.

Funny how accusation != crime, but "We don't want this person representing us" == jail time, isn't it? A legal standard of proof is both unnecessary and spurious in this situation, as nobody has been calling for prosecution. Frankly, the scientific and Bayesian standards of evidence - commonly accepted among secularists! - are more lax than the legal standard. Why is this extra rigidity being applied here?

Still fail to see the practical difference between the two.

A typical city street can be a hostile experience for women. It is not anti-woman. The general atmosphere of the secular community (and, hell, society in general) is unsafe and potentially hostile to women, but this is (for the most part) due more to lack of attention or concern or willingness to question the status quo than to active aggression. Therein lies the difference between "hostile" and "anti".

The opposition to the proposed rules was with the way they were campaigned. No one is saying that Atheist gatherings shouldn't have harassment policies, but trying to add policies and acting the way in which these people have when asked why they should be accepted is what has kicked off the opposition.

Bull. Fucking. Shit. You literally just said - on just the last page of this conversation! - that the reason these policies were opposed is because they were "unnecessary". ie, these policies shouldn't exist because they're just a waste of time. This was a common theme at the time. I like you, Sabby, but you've committed the Liar's First Sin: Lying while standing right next to the evidence.

I'm going to take a break from replying to this thread for now.

EDIT: Okay, this is a new page.

[Kane]

Funny how accusation != crime, but "We don't want this person representing us" == jail time, isn't it? A legal standard of proof is both unnecessary and spurious in this situation, as nobody has been calling for prosecution. Frankly, the scientific and Bayesian standards of evidence - commonly accepted among secularists! - are more lax than the legal standard. Why is this extra rigidity being applied here?

If accusation equals a crime, we live in a very dangerous world. That would not be a better place than where claims have to be substantiated. If we say we don't want such and such person representing us, we must say why do we not want them representing us. We can't exactly say. "Well, because they are sexual predators, you know." Without our claim being somewhat substantiated. It needs to be substantiated enough to at least stand in court, otherwise anyone can accuse anyone of anything just to tar their name.

[Sabby]

I haven't backpedaled. The harassment policies were proposed on the grounds that sexual harassment at conventions is a very large problem. Those pushing these rules failed to provide any evidence that the issue exists in such a way that the harassment policy already in place couldn't handle. The push for new policy, until they actually demonstrate why we need it, is unnecessary, and their hostility to those that question the new policy is what has raised the majority of concern.

I have stated two reasons, yes, but I have not replaced one with another. I apologize if I did not convey that very well.

[Hemingway]

What is the actual evidence that any of those alleged predators - I'm curious about Krauss in particular, as I have a great deal of respect for him - have done anything at all? I haven't been following the discussion closely at all, but the last thing I saw concerning it basically amounted to an unnamed source who refused to go into specifics, which more or less settled the matter in my mind.

Heh, I thought A+ died after the FreeThoughtBlogs debacle. I guess not!

[Sabby]

What is the actual evidence that any of those alleged predators - I'm curious about Krauss in particular, as I have a great deal of respect for him - have done anything at all? I haven't been following the discussion closely at all, but the last thing I saw concerning it basically amounted to an unnamed source who refused to go into specifics, which more or less settled the matter in my mind.

To be completely honest, I doubt they have any evidence at all for the most part. Ephiral is more familiar with the topic then me, so I'm sure if there's actually solid evidence that any of these people have committed a crime, he can provide it. But ever since the PZ Myers/Michael Shermer incident, I tend to not trust any accusations coming from A+ or FtB. They've shown themselves to be comfortable throwing around rape accusations with absolutely zero evidence (character attacks don't count as evidence Mr Myers) so I doubt they've suddenly developed some standards of information.

I really want to like Atheism+. The Atheist community is like a herd of cats, so it would be great for there to be some kind of venue to channel our desire for common good into actual results. I just hope this current incarnation will die out soon and we can try again on a more honest and productive foundation.

[Ephiral]

What is the actual evidence that any of those alleged predators - I'm curious about Krauss in particular, as I have a great deal of respect for him - have done anything at all? I haven't been following the discussion closely at all, but the last thing I saw concerning it basically amounted to an unnamed source who refused to go into specifics, which more or less settled the matter in my mind.

If accusation equals a crime, we live in a very dangerous world. That would not be a better place than where claims have to be substantiated. If we say we don't want such and such person representing us, we must say why do we not want them representing us. We can't exactly say. "Well, because they are sexual predators, you know." Without our claim being somewhat substantiated. It needs to be substantiated enough to at least stand in court, otherwise anyone can accuse anyone of anything just to tar their name.

You miss my point. If accusation does not equal crime, as I am willing to accept, why must we treat social repercussions as though they were jail time by demanding legal standards of evidence? Do you demand sworn testimony before you accept any assertion of anything at all? Do you refuse to listen to anybody who relays messages from another person, because that's hearsay? Do you consult a lawyer before you decide not to associate with someone any more? No? Then why are you demanding these standards here, when nobody is calling for legal repercussions?

Bayesian evidence would be a far more reasonable (and more likely to be accurate) standard here. So what does Bayes tell us? Well, the highest credible false-report rate for sexual misconduct I can find is 8%. (That's in Australia, and specifically pertains to rape, but I'm being as generous as I can here.) Taking Krauss as an example because he was asked about earlier, we have at least five separate accusations. (Given that his name circulated on back-channels for years, and one of these five was corroborated by multiple sources, the number is almost certainly higher, but let's stick to known facts.) Crunch the numbers, and we get a 34.26% chance that even one of these allegations is false, let alone all of them. On the other hand, to rebut a common refrain from the other side, the unreported-incident rate, per the US Bureau of Justice, is ~33%. It is just as plausible that five real incidents went unreported as that even a single one of those five is fake. Where would you place your bet?

This is before we take into account things that are more difficult to quantify, like the web of trust. Many of the people who reported these allegations have built up reputations over the course of years for being honest, sometimes to the point of being brutally straightforward. They staked these reputations on allegations that they, with greater details than we have here, found to be credible. There's also the matter that Krauss's name was passed quietly between women for years beforehand as someone who was unsafe to be around - not to ruin his reputation, as that list is still not public, but simply as a matter of safety. These factors are hard to quantify, but they hardly make the stories given to us less credible.

So which is more plausible: That every one of these accusations is false and either good enough to convince multiple credible reporters or seductive enough to convince them to throw away that credibility, or that Lawrence Krauss has engaged in a pattern of predatory behaviour which occasionally crosses the line into outright assault?

We're not looking for arrest or prosecution here - we don't need sworn affadavits and photographic evidence. What we do need is an examination of the information we have so we can make a decision as to whether this is a person we want to represent a movement that is already heavily male-dominated - and I know I don't, given the data available.

I haven't backpedaled. The harassment policies were proposed on the grounds that sexual harassment at conventions is a very large problem. Those pushing these rules failed to provide any evidence that the issue exists in such a way that the harassment policy already in place couldn't handle. The push for new policy, until they actually demonstrate why we need it, is unnecessary, and their hostility to those that question the new policy is what has raised the majority of concern.

I have stated two reasons, yes, but I have not replaced one with another. I apologize if I did not convey that very well.

Um. You said they were unnecessary, then said nobody said they shouldn't exist. Yes, that is backpedaling. Further, you're lying again. I just gave you solid evidence that TAM, for example, had a piss-poor policy in place - it was bad enough that Grothe thought there were no incidents on his watch, and that a guy who was caught with a camera on a stick taking upskirt photos was welcomed back. That is, when it had a policy - when directly questioned about whether there would even be a policy in place at the next event, they repeatedly refused to answer. So yes, the evidence was there, and was given as this push was ramping up. Repeatedly. At length. I just provided it again. Please stop spreading this lie.

To be completely honest, I doubt they have any evidence at all for the most part. Ephiral is more familiar with the topic then me, so I'm sure if there's actually solid evidence that any of these people have committed a crime, he can provide it. But ever since the PZ Myers/Michael Shermer incident, I tend to not trust any accusations coming from A+ or FtB. They've shown themselves to be comfortable throwing around rape accusations with absolutely zero evidence (character attacks don't count as evidence Mr Myers) so I doubt they've suddenly developed some standards of information.

Exactly what evidence do you have that Myers is lying? Keep in mind, his years of credibility and honesty are pretty hefty evidence against such a proposition, especially when he is risking that entire history for literally no conceivable benefit to himself.

Or are naked accusations perfectly all right when they come from sources you approve of?

EDIT: Forgot to remove irrelevant ranty bit from quoted material.

[Sabby]

If you're really resorting to 'prove him wrong', then I'm done here. I'm not going to try and disprove Myers claim. Shifting the burden of proof like that is something I deal with from Creationists, not Atheists.

[Ephiral]

I' not saying "prove him wrong". I'm not looking for solid proof of any sort, just plausibility. I'm saying "There is a significant amount of evidence that indicates that he is not lying, and that these accounts are plausible", and asking for any - any - evidence to counter that. There is apparently none. Why exactly is "He's lying!" plausible in any way?

Remember, Sabby, the best numbers I could find for your position were eight percent. The odds that the accusers in the Krauss case are all lying is 0.00032768%. The burden of proof is on the side saying that the case which has a probability of three ten-thousandths of a percent is true, not the side that finds someone with everything to lose and nothing to gain, with a long history of honesty, credible. Stop pretending I'm the one shifting the burden - yours is the weak case.

[Sabby]

I am really confused right now.

Myers made a claim against a person. He provided no evidence. Now I'm being told to accept his claim on the grounds that he's trustworthy. Well, sorry, but I don't accept those grounds, as I don't trust Myers. He went right to assembling a lynch mob with nonsense justifications like "I have it on good authority that he is a scumbucket"

Can you at least attempt to understand why I would be cautious of a group that operates in this way? I know you trust the members of A+, but I simply do not, so appealing to their credibility does nothing for me I'm afraid.

As for the thing about the policy, I have stated numerous times that I mispoke. I mentioned two reasons why the policy change was opposed. Yes, my wording appears as swapping one for another, and I have, and will again, apologize for that. But, as I have stated multiple times, and now have to again, that was a simple mistake on my part. Unless you'd like to ask me to go back and edit all the posts built on that goof to reflect the amended wording, then I'm not sure what else I can say about it.

Maybe the conventions did need some policy amendments. But the grounds on which those amendments were proposed and the way in which they were defended were what was lead people to deem them as unnecessary at the time.

[Ephiral]

I am really confused right now.

Myers made a claim against a person. He provided no evidence. Now I'm being told to accept his claim on the grounds that he's trustworthy. Well, sorry, but I don't accept those grounds, as I don't trust Myers. He went right to assembling a lynch mob with nonsense justifications like "I have it on good authority that he is a scumbucket"

Can you at least attempt to understand why I would be cautious of a group that operates in this way? I know you trust the members of A+, but I simply do not, so appealing to their credibility does nothing for me I'm afraid.

Myers has years of history writing online. When has he ever lied before? What benefit would it be to him to lie now? Even if he were willing to lie, what evidence overwhelms the sheer, ridiculous implausibility that this many reports are all completely false?

If you're going to accuse a man who's been forthright and honest for years of lying, I'd suggest you have any reason at all.

As for the thing about the policy, I have stated numerous times that I mispoke. I mentioned two reasons why the policy change was opposed. Yes, my wording appears as swapping one for another, and I have, and will again, apologize for that. But, as I have stated multiple times, and now have to again, that was a simple mistake on my part. Unless you'd like to ask me to go back and edit all the posts built on that goof to reflect the amended wording, then I'm not sure what else I can say about it.

I see one apology "if you were unclear", while continuing to assert that your earlier claim that the policies were "unnecessary" was still valid. At no point did you drop the "Nobody's saying they shouldn't exist" part. These two statements are in obvious conflict. You continue to hold both of these statements as valid, as far as I can tell. Even if we take "if I was unclear" as an apology for saying things that were clearly untrue after being presented with evidence that they were untrue, this is hardly "numerous times".

Saying things that are clearly untrue in the same thread as the evidence that they are not true, standing by those untrue statements, and then making more untrue statements in defense of them is not the way to build credibility, Sabby.

Maybe the conventions did need some policy amendments. But the grounds on which those amendments were proposed and the way in which they were defended were what was lead people to deem them as unnecessary at the time.

So "We'd like to know a policy exists at all" should be dismissed out of hand, but nobody's saying policies are unnecessary.
So "You personally handled a sexual harassment case last year and are now claiming it didn't exist - your documentation needs to be improved" isn't valid grounds for change.
So "A sexual harasser who was caught red-handed performing blatantly skeevy and likely criminal acts of harassment was welcomed back with open arms" isn't a reason to think about changing policies.

So, even now, even after the conventions who argued this position have largely realised that they were wrong and corrected the issue, this is still a position that you consider defensible.

I'll keep that in mind.

[Hemingway]

Ephiral, I'm going to stop you right at the first paragraph, at the point where you assume 'no'. Because accusations of rape are not 'any assertions of anything at all'.

I tried looking up rates of false reports in the US, and the numbers range from 2 to 31%. There is apparently no clear definition of what actually constitutes a 'false' claim. I'm not, if you'll pardon the irony, take your word for the 8% figure. It also doesn't actually matter. The Bayes theorem may be used in court, though I could find very few instances of this actually happening ( and it was apparently criticized, too ), but I'm also not a judge or a lawyer, so on general principle, I don't have to accept it.

We live - and I'd like to continue living in - societies where a person is considered innocent until there's actual proof to the contrary. If we relax our standards because that proof may be difficult to obtain, then many more people miscarriages of justice would occur. I'm firmly on the side of caution here; better that some guilty people go free, than innocent people wrongly punished. I'm using the 'term' punished loosely here, as having your reputation ruined certainly is a 'punishment', even if there's no official sentence.

What evidence is actually available? I went back and looked at the Krauss case, as that's the one I'm most interested in. It's literally one person claiming two other people had something unspecified happen to them, but they're too intimidated to come forward. Is that evidence? I would think that a community of people used to dealing with Christian tactics would see how bizarre that idea is. It's like a parody of the case against Julian Assange.

[Sabby]

I'm completely lost dude... you keep asserting that my two statements somehow cancel each other out, when I've clarified multiple times that I hold both opinions, and I still fail to see how they somehow are incompatible. If I go on trying to defend my position against this I'll be forced to limit my speech to a patronizing level of simplicity, and I'd really rather not. Maybe I'm just having extreme difficulty understanding your objection, and if that is indeed the case, I will apologize, but right now I have to admit that I simply do not follow right now.

[Ephiral]

Ephiral, I'm going to stop you right at the first paragraph, at the point where you assume 'no'. Because accusations of rape are not 'any assertions of anything at all'.

Wait, what? I'm not sure I follow here. I went with the rape numbers to be generous, as what academic numbers I could find for general sexual assault were lower.

I tried looking up rates of false reports in the US, and the numbers range from 2 to 31%. There is apparently no clear definition of what actually constitutes a 'false' claim. I'm not, if you'll pardon the irony, take your word for the 8% figure. It also doesn't actually matter. The Bayes theorem may be used in court, though I could find very few instances of this actually happening ( and it was apparently criticized, too ), but I'm also not a judge or a lawyer, so on general principle, I don't have to accept it.

Source on that 31% number, please? I'm unable to find it. The numbers I'm working from include Lisak et al, 2010 (5.9% in their study, though they cite others ranging from 2-10%), Heenan & Murray, 2006 (rape-sepcific, 2.1%; my mistake, this was the Australian one), the 2003 FBI Unfor Crime Report for the US (8%, rape-specific), DiCanio, 1993 (cites dispute over the specific figure but general agreement in the field that it's between 2 and 8 percent). It seems there's at least a vague consensus here among researchers, and I'm at the high end of it (again, being generous).

Further: Even if we accepted the apparently-ridiculous 31% number... that still gives us a 0.28% chance that all five victims are lying in the Krauss case. The best numbers you can pull don't make his innocence plausible.

We live - and I'd like to continue living in - societies where a person is considered innocent until there's actual proof to the contrary. If we relax our standards because that proof may be difficult to obtain, then many more people miscarriages of justice would occur. I'm firmly on the side of caution here; better that some guilty people go free, than innocent people wrongly punished. I'm using the 'term' punished loosely here, as having your reputation ruined certainly is a 'punishment', even if there's no official sentence.

We use "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal proceedings, true. But that's a higher bar than even civil court, let alone social actions. Do you hold a full jury trial with lawyers prosecuting and defending before you decide not to associate with someone? Then why are we holding to legal standards here? Why not use the standards that reasonable empiricists use to determine what is most likely to be real and correct given partial evidence?

What evidence is actually available? I went back and looked at the Krauss case, as that's the one I'm most interested in. It's literally one person claiming two other people had something unspecified happen to them, but they're too intimidated to come forward. Is that evidence? I would think that a community of people used to dealing with Christian tactics would see how bizarre that idea is. It's like a parody of the case against Julian Assange.

You didn't look very hard. Jen McCreight cited victims A and B. Eddy Cara cited at least one more separate incident, so there's C. Myers and Zvan have another case, so there's D and possibly E. Far cry from "one reporter, two accusers", isn't it?

Given that we know that sexual assault allegations are generally credible, even using your apparently-rejected-by-the-academic-community number of 31%, yes, these constitute evidence. Not certainty, but evidence of which case is more likely to be true. Even if we accept your number (which, barring some very impressive backing, I do not), even if we assume the Zvan and Myers reports are the same victim, the odds are 0.9% that all the accusers on record are lying, and 22% that they are all being honest.

This is what the data we have shows. Your alternative appears to be to go with gut feeling and emotion. (EDIT to remove rather offensive bit here.)

When the issue is unimportant, feel free to judge with your emotions and go with your gut. When it matters, shut up and multiply.

What is more likely to be true given the data we have?



EDIT:

I'm completely lost dude... you keep asserting that my two statements somehow cancel each other out, when I've clarified multiple times that I hold both opinions, and I still fail to see how they somehow are incompatible. If I go on trying to defend my position against this I'll be forced to limit my speech to a patronizing level of simplicity, and I'd really rather not. Maybe I'm just having extreme difficulty understanding your objection, and if that is indeed the case, I will apologize, but right now I have to admit that I simply do not follow right now.

The conflicting statements are "These policies were unneeded" and "Nobody is saying these policies should not exist."

In order for both of them to be true, your position must be that unnecessary policies should exist - that convention staff should waste time and money formulating policies that have no bearing whatsoever on events in the real world. It does not appear that you or those you support hold this position - I see nobody clamoring for a policy on things which do not exist or events which have never occurred, and it is basic logic that a convention with limited time and resources should spend them on things which actually affect the real world. Hence, either:

-These policies should exist because they are needed, or
-These policies should not exist, because they are unneeded and thus a waste of limited resources.

Either way, one of your statements must yield. Further, claims that it was not demonstrated that policies were needed are patently false, as are claims that you had, at the time the claim was made, stated "numerous times" that you misspoke. The evidence against these statements was in this very thread before you made them.

EDIT EDIT: I accidentally half a sentence.

[Valthazar]

I admittedly don't know much about this false reporting issue, but I was recently attending a presentation by a feminist speaker - and this was one of the topics.  She's a women's rights advocate, and happens to have a son who is in college.  When asked about the issue of false accusations of rape, she said it is a difficult issue, since she knows how things can be challenging for men.  She said she advises her son to not have sex unless he knows her well, ideally if it is a committed relationship.

I can't say I disagree with her advice on a practical level, but I found it rather ironic for a feminist to say, given that feminism has always served to encourage an atmosphere of free sexual expression.

[Kane]

I'm going to pipe in on the false rape claim issue. There is a small minority of claims that we can be reasonably sure are false. There is a slightly larger minority of claims that we can be reasonably sure are true. The vast majority fall into a grey area, that we do not know whether they are true or false.

In other words, it is just as false to say "Only 6% of rape claims are proven false, so the rest are true" as it is to say "Only 10-15% of rape claims are proven true and result in conviction, so the rest are false."

I don't know where this notion of "Rape claims are likely to be true" comes from. They are not any more likely to be true than any other type of accusations. They are just as likely to be false as any other type of accusation. Just because it's a horrific crime, doesn't make it more likely to have happened than any other type of crime people get falsely accused of, or framed to have done.

That said, every rape accusation should always be taken seriously, and investigated. Even at the risk of it causing someone personal damage. The punishment for rape should be much worse than it is. However, in cases where it can be proven without a shadow of doubt that the rape claim was false, there should be a consequence for ruining someone's reputation. Punishing false accusers does not mean that a genuine rape accuser would be prosecuted if they could not prove they were raped.

You miss my point. If accusation does not equal crime, as I am willing to accept, why must we treat social repercussions as though they were jail time by demanding legal standards of evidence? Do you demand sworn testimony before you accept any assertion of anything at all? Do you refuse to listen to anybody who relays messages from another person, because that's hearsay? Do you consult a lawyer before you decide not to associate with someone any more? No? Then why are you demanding these standards here, when nobody is calling for legal repercussions?

I demand evidence, at least some semblance of it. Yes. I'm afraid that's how I operate. Most of the time, when someone comes to me, accusing someone else of some kind of a misdeed, they'll have some kind of evidence, whether it's someone else witnessing that something wrong at least seems to have been gone on or whatever. It might not necessarily stand in court every and each time, but there has to be some kind of grounds to it, other than "Well the person is quite trustworthy though."

I don't know the personal relationships between every and each person, I don't know what is everyone's agenda. I don't know what are everyone's issues with each other. I simply cannot know when someone's so pissed off with something someone else has done, that they are going to throw them under the 'predator' train to get them back.

The more serious the accusation, the more it demands evidence. If I get told someone told someone else to fuck off, I might take their word for it. If someone tells me someone I trust and has a good record, is a predator, I might just want a bit more.

Since you were using examples like "Do you demand evidence for everything" I guess extreme examples are ok. If someone you trust told you that another quite trusted person just killed someone, with no evidence whatsoever, would you just take it at face value, because that person has been trustworthy in the past?

[Chris Brady]

We live - and I'd like to continue living in - societies where a person is considered innocent until there's actual proof to the contrary.

I've got to pipe up right here, and say 'No we don't.'  We live in a society where snap judgements are made against anyone who's accused of a crime.  Ephiral (I'm sorry but taking someone's word simply because they haven't lied before is not admissible in a court of law) is a prime example of this, and they are not the only person to do so.  It happens all the time.

There are keywords that, when used, will trigger an extreme reaction.  Like the word 'Rape'.  It's an act that has never been acceptable.  Ever.  There are examples everywhere of people getting angry, and willing to beat and/or murder the alleged perpetrator, even if there's no evidence of it.

Now the Justice system of various countries try to assume Innocent Until Proven Guilty, but outside of the courts, it's the opposite.

I wish we lived in a society in which that innocence is presumed, before guilt, but we don't.  There have simply been too many news articles in the meager 40 years I've lived on this mudball we call earth that claim otherwise.

[kylie]

I admittedly don't know much about this false reporting issue, but I was recently attending a presentation by a feminist speaker - and this was one of the topics.  She's a women's rights advocate, and happens to have a son who is in college.  When asked about the issue of false accusations of rape, she said it is a difficult issue, since she knows how things can be challenging for men.  She said she advises her son to not have sex unless he knows her well, ideally if it is a committed relationship.

I can't say I disagree with her advice on a practical level, but I found it rather ironic for a feminist to say, given that feminism has always served to encourage an atmosphere of free sexual expression.

It does feel a little funny on the face of it, yes.  Though I would be surprised if someone could show it was really a commonly occurring situation.  We don't all isolate ourselves from people generally just because a few of them might be murderers...   Or for that matter, particularly in the US, a few of them might show up in college with an automatic weapon tomorrow, and instantly become mass murderers!   ::)  Yet we go on going to class every so often... Many of us anyway.  So it may be a bit much to postpone sex generally over a few rare cases of false accusations?

         I wonder:  How much more common are false rape accusations than say first-time, surprise murder cases among one's social network, if indeed they are more common?  How much is known about the sorts of relationships or preceding events where people may be more likely to make such accusations?  Are some of these, also arguably cases of simple confusion and miscommunication?  It may also be possible that one person feels it's false and the other doesn't, in some cases.  Although...  I think quite a few of those, people say that outside at the hearsay level...  But probably when you look at the details, many of them are actually someone who didn't think much at the time at all, in a situation where someone normally couldn't consent or not with relative clarity...  And then cases where someone just too conveniently assumed it would be seen as "normal" later because say, they were drunk -- or drugged -- or wearing a short dress -- or failed to ask someone more trustworthy for a ride.  In those cases, one side really believes it's a false accusation but the other, ummm no.  They may very well decide that confusion or exploitation are not the same as permission granted.

           But about that second part of the quote...

feminism has always served to encourage an atmosphere of free sexual expression.

          This is getting a little close to the same sort of messy shotgun where Kane (in the case of the opening here) so very loudly kept saying feminism as if it were all one neat thing, with those sneer quotes.  If you look at the various authors and groups, you'll find some do and some clearly do not...  And some say they do but have contradictory details going on when they start talking about various issues, from the get go.  Now granted, you may or may not have reason to say this particular person comes from a strain that typically seems to.  But it's hardly true that all feminisms have.  And certainly not always.  Some people even actually change their minds or detailed prescriptions on certain things from time to time.   ;)

[Kythia]

I can't say I disagree with her advice on a practical level, but I found it rather ironic for a feminist to say, given that feminism has always served to encourage an atmosphere of free sexual expression.

Not sure I'd give you that.  While, sure, Dworkin never actually said that "all heterosexual sex is rape", it is undeniably a position held by others even if you believe her that its not held by her.  Sexual expression and feminism don't, IMO have that strong a correlation.  Hell, just look at the SCUM manifesto and separatist feminism.

I would think that a community of people used to dealing with Christian tactics would see how bizarre that idea is.

Seriously guys?  Are we genuinely going to allow a passing comment that insults almost a billion and a half people to go unchallenged?  I get that its part of the culture of E but that went beyond the pale a little.  Would you allow me calling sweeping generalisations intended to give casual offense to a fifth of the world without any sort of evidence "atheist tactics"?   

[Sabby]

Kythia, that comment was made in regards to Christian debating tactics, not Christians.

[Kane]

Kythia, that comment was made in regards to Christian debating tactics, not Christians.

I would make a clear point if I was you, and note that is an apologist debating tactic, not Christian.

[Sabby]

I would agree, actually, just the vast majority of Christian debaters are Apologists, so it's not always specified.

[Kythia]

Kythia, that comment was made in regards to Christian debating tactics, not Christians.

While I understand your point, I think that's a mighty fine hair to be splitting.  "Christians use bad debating tactics" is implicitly a comment about Christians - compare with "Australians use bad debating tactics".

But meh.  It's very much a side issue and I don't want to drag it out.  I just wanted to flag it because it annoyed me.

[Sabby]

While I understand your point, I think that's a mighty fine hair to be splitting. "Christians use bad debating tactics" is implicitly a comment about Christians - compare with "Australians use bad debating tactics".

No, see, it's not directed at Christians who debate a point. A Christian debating for climate change awareness is no more likely to swing to the dishonest side then any other debater.

Do you mean 'Debater who is Australian', or 'Debater who argues that Australia is X'. The first is irrelevant, because the topic could be literally anything, but the latter is more specific. 'Australia is X' or 'Australia has the best Y' is a much more refined subject, and is something that can be discussed honestly or dishonestly. The subject matter of Christian debaters is similarly more refined. The difference is that the majority of those positions are argued through manipulative and dishonest means when they reach any kind of formal platform.