I don't agree with the MN feminists. AIBU?

[jennyvstheworld]

I consider myself an active proponent of equality of opportunity and a stern critic of discrimination... and yet I find that I can't identify with many of the viewpoints I encounter on the MN feminism page (and often say so). AIBU?

Fair enough - I should have been clearer.

It does remain though, that there is a discrepancy between the legal position and in the case that was suggested, of a woman who was specifically concerned that she could not remember if she consented to the sex that she had, I for one am not inclined to brush her concerns under the carpet by suggesting that it's completely normal to have blackouts and that someone who would have sex with her in that position is an a-ok individual. I wouldn't have sex with a man who was slurring and struggling to walk. I don't see why it's so hard for anyone to enact that. In a court, who knows what result this poster would have had; from a feminist angle, supported by the Sexual Offences Act, this is rape and the courts should recognise that.

I have no wish to tell your friends anything. If anyone asks my opinion, I would give it, but would always couch it with an explanation that I cannot tell a woman how must define her own experience; it's up to her how she feels about it.

And I'm genuinely not being disingenuous: simply pointing out that there is a discrepancy between legal and feminist definitions of what constitutes rape.

Honestly claw, I didn't mean to give that impression. As I clarified, I did not intend anyone to take 'intoxication' as one or two drinks - given that we were discussing the case of a woman who could not remember, I didn't think one or two drinks were an option. As such, it didn't occur to me that anyone would take my statements as the equivalent of 'all intoxicated sex is rape'. I don't know of anyone who thinks that!

I'm now immensely confused, whatmeworry. There are radical feminists on MN, and they're a brilliant presence. But perhaps our versions of what is radical are different, and that's why we're arguing, because I don't think that radical feminism dominates on that board, whereas you think it's all radical feminism

No, I think radical feminists dominate that board, howl down all who would disagree, and redefine all those who disagree with them as non-feminists.

That they are an OTT minority is shown by the frequency and size of the "YABU" threads against them on MN, and the fact that they are trolled and trawled even by outsiders, as their reputation for being batshit crazy OTT has spread way outside of MN.

There is a lesson there if you choose to learn it :)

Victor i didnt see the thread in question, but perhaps the man was also so drunk he cannot remember what happened. Drink masks peoples better judgment, men and women alike.

sprogger I don't think I understand a word of your post

But if you are suggesting that I am wrong and that all intoxicated sex is rape - because that is all I am arguing against then we will have to agree to disagree.

Victor i got that impression as i had already agreed and told you were right that unconscious sex is rape.

You then pointing me in the direction of Christine's post that stated "intoxication means consent cannot be given" I assumed you were saying just that. My mistake.

I shared a house with several other women when I was younger. One night, the young woman who had the room next door to mine came back with a man.
I had to get up early the next day and didn't want to listen to them having sex but could not help but overhear it. To be honest, I was seething because they were keeping me awake.
The woman was very vocal in her requests from the guy: 'Touch me here' 'Do it like this' 'I want it this way'.
Next day, I casually asked her about her evening, she said that she couldn't remember much past midnight. They came home at about 1am.

So, in my experience, just because a woman does not remember giving consent, does not mean to say that she did not give consent.

Fair enough victor I don't think it is unreasonable however for people to assume "intoxication" would refer to any amount of alcohol which causes a change in behaviour, given, for example, our tendency to refer to people who have had a couple of pints as being "intoxicated" when it comes to driving a car or opperating machinery.

FWIW I have found this dicussion interesting and don't think it would have occurred on the feminist board.

Now I really have to go and make a cake.

I think its hard to dicuss consent (apart from the obvious consent) with our sons and daughters as it is not quite clear cut in law. For example

"If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting, and subject to questions about the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse takes place, this would be rape;"

then literally the next quote is "Where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape"

Perhaps discussing drinking sensibly would be a better option?

It's hard because it's a difficult issue. There was a man who in his sleep does things recently prosecuted. A girl in the house had come into his bed room. if I had a known condition which meant I had sex in my sleep (it does exist) I would make sure 365 days a year I locked my bed room door. Hopefully he will in future.

There are lots of different types of views on feminism and I posted some of mine above but most men and women in the UK believe the fundamentals that the law should treat everyone equally regardless of sex and there should be fairness at home which is how I define it.

[rolls eyes emoticon]

I wasn't gloating, I was pointing out the reasons why the MN Fem board gets trolled, and why so many MNers respond so strongly on threads like these.

An analogy would probably be the Labour Party when it was taken over by the Militant Tendency, it essentially became unsupportable/unelectable as its ideology no longer connected with its natural supporters. It required quite a purge of ideologies to get it back into the mainstream again.

If saying that that makes me come across as a horrible person, then I think you are indulging in good old messenger shooting TBH.

I think calling people batshit crazy makes you come across as a horrible person.

Are you really trying to say it's ok to troll just because you don't think the feminists here have mainstream views?

Would it also be fine to insult any holder of minority views? Or do you draw the line somewhere?

No, I think radical feminists dominate that board, howl down all who would disagree, and redefine all those who disagree with them as non-feminists

That they are an OTT minority is shown by the frequency and size of the "YABU" threads against them on MN, and the fact that they are trolled and trawled even by outsiders, as their reputation for being batshit crazy OTT has spread way outside of MN.

There is a lesson there if you choose to learn it

So the men who are targeting the feminist section are only doing it because the feminists on there are 'radical'? And the posters are bringing the harassment on themselves?

These women with their uppity ideas; of course men are going to target them, and they only have themselves to blame.

Surely radical feminists, or radical anything, get people's goat?

Are you really trying to say it's ok to troll just because you don't think the feminists here have mainstream views?

No, the FM boards are being trolled because they have some pretty radical posters and tend to be fairly vehement in the way they express their views. They are welcome to do that, but it does makes them far more vulnerable to trolling and trawling (and being insulted) than IMO they need be.

Do you think the trolls noticed the Feminist section and though, 'What a reasonable idea. A place specifically for the discussion of feminist ideas.' Then read through it and thought, 'Oooh. I'm as much of a feminist as the next MRA, but this is a bit OTT.'

Please don't think that these trolls just think radical feminists are "OTT" or nasty women. They think all women are nasty. They don't like women at all. Why do you think MN gets so many trolls full stop? Because women are here, collectively voicing opinions, generally without men to "guide" us. This is not acceptable in the minds of these trolls. Feminists are just the ones to blame for allowing this to happen.

HahahaHAHA puffin :o

Brilliant concept.

'No, the FM boards are being trolled because they have some pretty radical posters and tend to be fairly vehement in the way they express their views. They are welcome to do that, but it does makes them far more vulnerable to trolling and trawling (and being insulted) than IMO they need be.'

I'm sorry if this is rude, but ... do you know what radical means? How does being radical (going to the root belief/cause) make you vulnerable to being insulted?

Being radical is not the same as being extreme. It is not the same as being OTT. It is possible to be both radical and mainstream in some contexts, though not feminism in this country right now.

You're not making sense. Imo because you don't actually understand the words you're using, much less the concepts feminists are interested in.

You're not making sense. Imo because you don't actually understand the words you're using, much less the concepts feminists are interested in

LRD, although "Radical" is derived from the latin for roots, and although the words may not make sense to you, Radical Femism is a well accepted concept in modern Feminist thought- check out Wikipedia for example.

HTH

*Radical Feminism