Feminism, Mens Rights and Other Nonsense.

[kylie]

          I want to gingerly (gingerly! or with cinnamon if you prefer  O:) ) call vagueness or hyperbole on both of you.  Hem talked about the Krauss case and didn't bother to spell out, at least in that post, whatever relationship he saw between his view of the example (which Ephiral later challenges, but anyhow) and his model of how certain "religious" positions have often been phrased.  Kyth comes along and says in effect, if you so much as use the word Christian shotgun (by which I mean without specifics), then a "billion and a half" people might potentially -- or perhaps should, is rather implied -- get offended.

          First, there might be some question of whether people should attempt to at least guess what vague statements are more particularly aimed at (perhaps the tendency of certain leading fundamentalist Christian figures etc. to often moralize and engage in public character assassination on public "family values" cases without inside evidence about those cases to speak of?) ...  Or maybe when someone is horribly vague, there could be room to ask what in the world they meant or suggest what comes to mind when they say that exactly... 

            Second, this response hinting that the whole of Christendom might or should get into in furious insulted uproar, all billion and a half...?  Just because it was vague and mentioned something negative using the word "Christian" in regard to anything generalized?  This is like Chinese government propaganda. " Why if Obama meets the Dalai Lama "of course"all 1.3 billion Chinese people we're up to now, will all be immediately revolted and take this as the gravest possible insult! "  And because the Great nation is oh so big [just like some Great Big Religions?] you best watch what you say lest too many people don't like being called out about anything a few, or however many of them for that matter might actually be doing. Rawr.  In either case, best no one look at the issues that were being talked about before.  (Or were they there to be talked about?  That's still TBD I guess.)

           But wow...  The sweeping, puffy words in reaction to the pretty vague, perhaps also sweeping puffy words?  I know y'all are trying to shelve it already.  Just gotta say, that irked me a little too.  Done.   :o

[gaggedLouise]

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

No, they're not. Perhaps the ones that would show up to speak if one would arrange a debate on the topic "Does God exist?" but not the majority of people who engage in debate (on whatever topic in politics, philosophy, ethics or religion) and who identify as Christians.

Also, most Christians don't think it's a catch-all answer to treat rape, any and every rape incident, the way it could have been treated in a hardcore christian community in 1880. Or in some other single decreed way.

Would you accept the statement "Most people in the U.S. who debate the Middle East or in are Jewish apologists" (that is, apologists for the cause of "the Jews"/Israel)??

[Sabby]

As I said in my post, I'm referring to discussions that reach a formal platform.

[Kythia]

Man, I wish I'd never mentioned this now.  The reference to the number of people was intended to show that claiming "Christian" tactics was explicitly claiming a much larger number of people than was, I suspect, originally intended.  Hemingway feels that some Christians use that tactic and has expanded that to a sweeping statement that Christians use that tactic.  Some Somalians have used rape as a tool of intimidation  but I'd be called out if I called rape a "Black tactic"

[Sabby]

Whoa. I think I'm done here. This has gone off topic any how.

[gaggedLouise]

As I said in my post, I'm referring to discussions that reach a formal platform.

I was too, if we count discussions in the U.S. congress, through articles in newspapers and magazines (not readers' comments or "letters to the editor") and major tv and radio networks as well as public panel debates, faculty and town hall debates. But I'm not too keen on taking this line any further either: it is bit of a fringe issue by now.

[kylie]

The reference to the number of people was intended to show that claiming "Christian" tactics was explicitly claiming a much larger number of people than was, I suspect, originally intended.  Hemingway feels that some Christians use that tactic and has expanded that to a sweeping statement that Christians use that tactic.  Some Somalians have used rape as a tool of intimidation  but I'd be called out if I called rape a "Black tactic"

          But would you be called out for calling it a Somali tactic?  That's a better analogy, I think.  Maybe by some rather sensitive nationalists, but the Western news media commonly says something to the tune of, "Somalian militia" or "Somalian pirates" etc. use such things, whenever they get around to mentioning that part of the world.  I suppose it bothers a few Somalians who worry about such things, but for the purposes of having a discussion:  We know it doesn't describe every single Somalian and you should hardly expect all Somalians to be upset at the wording in that context.  The issue really to be discussed is the rape and intimidation and what the heck is happening with it.

          That is different from the beginning of this thread, where Kane just said "feminism" and the quotes and lack of specific cases early on really, at least potentially I might better say, made it appear to be aimed at all of feminism.  It was wildly and endlessly vague while running on with heavy claims.  There was a whole lot of endless chatter using the word over and over, messily.  The post you've quoted only has a very short blurb.  The problem is it's totally short and vague.  But I don't think it's much of a problem that he's mentioned the people he's concerned about are often somehow, someone, somewhere Christian.
 
         If he is right, and I suppose he is (if I am guessing what he meant, or close enough):  Then it is a tactic of some, certain Christians.  Though he wasn't very clear, and I think you could better ask about that.   

          Personally, I don't see from that post saying he thought it was every one.  His weakness (or certainly vagueness) is that it's not specifying anything there.  Or just possibly, you feel you're talking back to some earlier frame of the discussion?  But I don't see what you are aiming at being said, in the post of his that you quoted.

[Kythia]

          But would you be called out for calling it a Somali tactic?  That's a better analogy, I think.  Maybe by some rather sensitive nationalists, but the Western news media commonly says something to the tune of, "Somalian militia" or "Somalian pirates" etc. use such things, whenever they get around to mentioning that part of the world.  I suppose it bothers a few Somalians who worry about such things, but for the purposes of having a discussion:  We know it doesn't describe every single Somalian and you should hardly expect all Somalians to be upset at the wording in that context.  The issue really to be discussed is the rape and intimidation and what the heck is happening with it.

Mmmm.  Probably doesn't need saying but "Western Media do this" and "It is correct to do this" aren't the same statement.  I would certainly call out for claiming it was a Somali tactic, yes, though I don't actually see the difference between the analogies.  "Within a specific subset of a wider whole some members of that subset do this =/= the wider whole does this" is the sole point I was trying to make and I'm actually surprised there's anything controversial there.

I think I'm done.

EDIT:  Just to expand a little - that sort of vague and woolly phrasing is harmful.  Calling rape a Somali tactic sets up lines of thinking, it colours perspectives.  It makes it a societal problem "Oh, that's the way shit is done in Somalia".  Being clear that this is a problem specific to some individuals prevents the vague laziness of sweeping an entire nation under the same wave of the hand. 

[kylie]

          I do think he could have been much clearer.  He might have said for example, certain fundamentalist Christian leaders, if that is who he has in mind.  But often people get in a bit of a hurry and shorten things to Christian.  This happens in many other areas.  Since you raise Somalia, if the Al Qaeda affiliate in Somalia says "The Americans attacked us" when the Marines landed...  Are you going to fuss about "Wait, those were only some Americans, it wasn't me!  [Oh or if you're not American, "It wasn't anyone I know over there!"]  I [He] didn't do it!"  That isn't the point -- nor the situation! -- they are talking about and you're reasonably expected by most everyone to know it.   Did they say it mattered to their point just how many?  Can you show it matters to yours?  Then ask them, or produce some ideas of your own about what did probably happen that's got them so upset if it wasn't "your" Americans.   

         The people who landed were Americans. For that matter, they are Somali pirates and yes Somalian rape cases of whatever ilk, until such time as there is enough discussion for people to agree on something better that can be said in three-ish syllables to get on with comparing them with other situations and dealing with the findings.  Or perhaps you would prefer that in the name of precision we try not to offend however many tribes (and Christian denominations) by using twenty different names for things where various people who are involved go on with the rape and piracy. 

         While I understand that -- as I said -- a few radical nationalist (or alternatively, obstructionist?) Somalis might be so offended that we don't narrow down every discussion to the name of village, tribe or individual and their particular ethnic names and philosophies and use all of that every time we want to say a rape happened around Somalia in each and every sentence...  I will continue to maintain that quite a few Somalis would probably be quite happy if we kept on saying "Somalia" IF it meant we might get more people on the problem faster and actually talk about and respond to the damn rapes which do have something in and of Somalia about them.  By contrast, your position here seems to mean:  Since it's less offensive to keep the simple word Christianity apart from any mention of controversy about feminism, the most precise prideful people like yourself must refuse all discussion of the matter.

        Either way, so it's a better discussion![/i]   We can't put an adjective or a quantity with every single mention of something that does correlate to some extent with certain groups.  We say the part we've noticed and get on with what kind of action we've noticed.  If you want to draw a distinction about who, sure go ahead...  But he didn't really say exactly which Christians he thinks does it.  Why not ask him?  Or make a suggestion if you can guess, even. 

         And whether or not how many Christians happen to like whatever we might find or imagine after that, isn't immediately relevant to modeling how feminism compares to whatever Christian(s) do whatever tactic(s) or not.  It's not a problem of politeness and foregone conclusions.  It's a question of actual philosophy and behaviors we can point out.  They could just be damn different, whichever feminists one picks and whichever Christians do use those things if they do.  Who knows.  Everyone can argue about whether it's nice or unavoidable or mean after we figure out who he was talking about.   

          But tossing out parts of the convo over "Christians" being vaguely involved somehow that someone apparently disapproves of -- when we haven't even figured out just what it was supposed to mean yet?  That doesn't lead us anywhere.  Except it does save some Christians from any critical discussion of anything Christian at all, one might say.  It also could mean leaving out some very positive, complex discussion of what various Christian groups do say, whichever way, about feminism.

[Kythia]

And whether or not how many Christians happen to like whatever we might find or imagine after that, isn't immediately relevant to modeling how feminism compares to whatever Christian(s) do whatever tactic(s) or not.  It's not a problem of politeness and foregone conclusions.  It's a question of actual philosophy and behaviors we can point out.  They could just be damn different, whichever feminists one picks and whichever Christians do use those things if they do.  Who knows.  Everyone can argue about whether it's nice or unavoidable or mean after we figure out who he was talking about.   

          But tossing out parts of the convo over "Christians" being vaguely involved somehow that someone apparently disapproves of -- when we haven't even figured out just what it was supposed to mean yet?  That doesn't lead us anywhere.  Except it does save some Christians from any critical discussion of anything Christian at all, one might say.  It also could mean leaving out some very positive, complex discussion of what various Christian groups do say, whichever way, about feminism.

I'm sorry, could you rephrase this?  I have no idea what you mean by it.  From the first paragraph, what the hell has feminism got to do with this?  As to te second....man, I'm totally lost. Tossing out parts of what conversation?  Haven't figured out what what was supposed to mean?  One might say that, sure, but why?  What positive complex discussions would be left out?

I'm sorry, but you've absolutely lost me here.

[Ephiral]

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."

Um, no, but very nice try. There are a vast number of reasons a true accusation might not result in a conviction, including a victim's lack of interest in being dragged through a courtroom, police lack of interest in pursuing a case, complete failure to report, and evidence that, while clear enough to indicate that something happened, does not meet courtroom standards.

There is a small minority of claims we can be reasonably sure are false. There is a larger minority of claims we can be sure are true, were pursued by police, had victims willing to prosecute, and had evidence to courtroom standards. The vast majority don't see the inside of a courtroom but are credible enough to factor into the decisions of a reasonable person who doesn't happen to be sitting on a jury.

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.

You're absolutely right. What's the general rate of false criminal accusations? Oh, 2%. Hmm.

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."

Yes, evidence is important, and there should be some backing every belief you hold. But legal evidence is not the only kind of evidence. If someone tells you in the middle of the night that the sun will come up tomorrow, do you demand a sworn affadavit and photographic evidence that the sun still exists? Or does every previous sunrise count as evidence that this is probably true?

P(allegation is legitimate|low report rate, extreme social hostility to accusers, complete lack of benefit to the accusers in this case, low false-report rate) > P(allegation is legitimate). These factors are evidence that the allegations are unlikely to be false.

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.

You realize that the false-report statistics I've been citing include the overwhelming majority of malicious reports, right? In the absence of a detailed map of social networks, the correct default skeptical position is to fall back on the general false-report rate unless there is evidence that these allegations are more likely to be spurious than the general case.

Also, what exactly constitutes "a good record"? None of the accused are exactly known for their stellar track record on women's issues. The best you can say is that, up until now, they did not have a bad reputation that you were aware of. (It is profoundly untrue to say that they did not have a bad reputation at all.) This is not evidence against the allegations, this is non-information.

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?

No. No no no no no. I did not and never have questioned whether evidence is needed for every belief you hold. I questioned whether courtroom-level evidence is needed. If someone very trustworthy, with nothing to gain from lying and an extremely valuable public and professional reputation to lose, came to me and told me that someone else who I respected had murdered someone, and then a number of other similarly trustworthy people came forth independently with more murdery incidents, and then when I investigated it turned out there had in fact been a number of well-corroborated multiply-witnessed accounts of the accused making death threats, and he was well-known for inviting people to come take a look at his knife collection and quicklime pit, and it turned out that he had a quiet but very real reputation among his potential-victim pool for murder? Then yes, I'd be more than a little suspicious of him. I sure as hell would never be alone with him, and I wouldn't want him representing me in public for any reason. I wouldn't say "He is a murderer, period." I wouldn't demand he be thrown in jail. But I'd sure as hell be disassociating from him, which is all that anybody has ever asked for.

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.

No need to apologize - this isn't far from what I've been saying. I'm not calling for snap judgments (which rational people shouldn't really be making on important matters), but... well, we absolutely don't demand criminal-court standards of evidence before acting on any other piece of data outside a courtroom. Why here?

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"?

You're absolutely right, and I should not have engaged on these terms. I've edited to remove that; I apologize.

(I'd like to note, however, that it's kinda hilarious for someone to accuse me of the sort of tactics known to certain skeevy evangelical/fundamentalist Christian public figures in one breath, and then say "I don't have to accept this theorem of probability when determining what is probably true because I don't like it!" with the next.)

[kylie]

              Kythia, I edited again to answer your Somali example again btw. 

             When I popped in today, you were replying to Hemmingway's example of the Krauss case, which did talk about rape accusations.  That clearly has something to do with views of gender, the status of women, and -- this is the way I make sense of what little he said -- the tendency of certain very vocal Christians to make public character attacks without evidence. 

             He talks about women making claims without evidence (he says), and then compares that to whatever Christian methods.  At which point, you became flustered because he didn't put in numbers or names, something else where I just added "whatever."  So yes, I think his point was to imagine some parallel between "Christian tactics" and the rape accusations he described.  I can only guess precisely which or how many Christians, or maybe what specific tactics even, that refers to, without asking him for more.  But maybe you could too, if you were interested. 

            When you stop the whole conversation at attacking him merely for saying "Christian tactics" in an all too short post, I think you're probably not very interested in whatever he was trying to say about women, rape accusations, or variations of feminism. 

[Kythia]

              Kythia, I edited again to answer your Somali example again btw. 

             When I popped in today, you were replying to Hemmingway's example of the Krauss case, which did talk about rape accusations.  That clearly has something to do with views of gender, the status of women, and -- this is the way I make sense of what little he said -- the tendency of certain very vocal Christians to make public character attacks without evidence. 

             He talks about women making claims without evidence (he says), and then compares that to whatever Christian methods.  At which point, you became flustered because he didn't put in numbers or names, something else where I just added "whatever."  So yes, I think his point was to imagine some parallel between "Christian tactics" and the rape accusations he described   I can only guess precisely which or how many Christians, or maybe what specific tactics even, that refers to without asking him for more.  But maybe you could too, if you were interested. 

            When you stop the whole conversation at attacking him merely for saying "Christian tactics" in an all too short post, I think you're probably not very interested in whatever he was trying to say about women, rape accusations, or variations of feminism.

Errrrrm.  Have you seen Ephiral's long post just above yours?  The conversation isn't stopped by any stretch of the imagination.  It's still going.  We - you, me and previously Sabby and Lousie - are having a different conversation.  That's something that happens, conversations grow and split off and evolve.

Also, I didn't mean to "attack" Hemingway and my apologies to him if it did come across as an attack.

[Vekseid]

I cannot help but feel this thread has gone from bad to worse.

More specifically, I do not wish to see my forum to become a vehicle for 'the court of public opinion'. Even if 98% of rape accusations are true, destroying the life of one innocent person in fifty is not acceptable collateral damage. Some of my closest friends have gone through some horrific, extended experiences. Cheapening their experience is not acceptable collateral damage.

It's a line I would not like to see crossed here again, please.

If you wish to continue discussion, you may open a new thread, or ask that this one be re-opened in 24 hours.

Thank you.