Is Ireland correct to declare war on boys who have consensual sex with their girlfriends?

[femtastic]

Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.

Court hears 'Romeo and Juliet' laws appea

THE Supreme Court has been urged to overturn as unconstitutional the so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws which allow the prosecution of teenage boys for having sex with teenage girls but prevent prosecution of the girls.

The court is hearing an appeal arising from a 15-year-old boy being charged under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 with having sex with a 14-year-old girl in the Donegal Gaeltacht.

The boy is also charged with buggery and his trial is on hold pending the outcome of the appeal, which opened yesterday and will resume on a future date.

Section 3 of the 2006 act created an offence of defilement of a child under 17 and provided for a sentence of up to five years' imprisonment. Section 5 of the act stated a girl under 17 cannot be guilty of such an offence.

In the High Court in March 2010, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne ruled, while the law did amount to gender discrimination, that discrimination was not invidious, capricious or disproportionate.

As the risk of pregnancy as a result of underage sex was borne by girls only, not boys, society was entitled to deter such activity and to place the burden of criminal sanction on those "who bear the least adverse consequences" of it, she said.

Outlining the boy's appeal against that decision, John O'Kelly SC said the kernel of the appeal was that both parties involved in this sexual act were children in law aged under 17, with only about a year between the two of them.

The boy's case was they engaged consensually in an act of sexual intercourse but under the act, one of them was liable to be convicted and possibly jailed for up to five years while the other was guilty of no criminal offence at all.

Mr Justice Nial Fennelly noted the 2006 act is neutral as to whether the act of sexual intercourse is consensual or not and the court was not getting involved in that issue in the appeal.

John Finlay SC, for the state, opposed the appeal and argued the High Court decision should stand. The disputed provision was a proportionate measure on grounds of pregnancy, he submitted.

"It was lenak who referenced the other thread and I felt it would be impolite to bring it up to her, as she seems to be a new poster on this board"

Jeez - again with the patronising.

I didn't mention the other thread first - you did in your post at 19:44:59 where you continued to attack equalists.

I did not post about the other thread until 21:19:23 and only in defence against what you had said.

Sorry for continuing the thread cross-over - but it is the only way I can prove that I was not calling the feminist boards a "bitchfest" or calling posters unreasonable as you claim.

'I was paying people who had tried to engage in a constructive way a compliment, trying to explain that I did not think that the whole of the feminist boards were unreasonable, yet you have chosen to twist that.'

No, you mentioned posters like LeninGrad and MillyR as reasonable and by inference some of the other posters (possibly the ones being attacked) as unreasonable and unlovely. Yes you brought up bitchfest in respect to the AIBU thread, but I took that as meaning teh bitches were the posters not agreeing with you and the "constructive" "reasonable" posters like LeninGrad, not the ones who were defending themselves against attacks.

Yes I think that equalism is an MRA trick, but I think that not all equalists are aware of that and are not part of it.

Yes I don't agree with everything that every feminist believes in. I am not a progressive and I don't believe it is a "ridiculous assumption" that all teenage boys should be held accountable for sex with underage girls. I also am not a communist and I believe that some feminists have views which are close to communism and I don't agree with them either. I have my own beliefs, I don't follow dogma, only what I believe in.

Yes, I believe that equalism is a trick to undermine feminism and women's rights. I'm sorry but I don't agree with your positive view of equalism. I have listened to your view, but don't agree with you.

'"It was lenak who referenced the other thread and I felt it would be impolite to bring it up to her, as she seems to be a new poster on this board"

Jeez - again with the patronising.

That wasn't intended to be patronising. I meant it. I didn't wish to deflect your attack on me by bringing up the fact that you had quoted another thread to me.

Yes, you are right, I forgot that I did actually previously mention the AIBU thread and the MRA championing equalism, but that was not a reference to you or in reply to you. It was my belief that equalism is an MRA trick, nothing to do with you.

'Naming posters Claig is against mumsnet guidelines - I assume you, along with every other regular mumsnetter is aware of that?'

yes that is why I think that attacks on posters without naming them is more cowardly than just naming them. I also think that asking mumsnet to delete posts is cowardly.

'I have finally realised that report is a better option than walk away, and so I will be using it, despite my personal reservations.'

I thought you would.

I am not saying that no posters are dealt with harshly on here. SGB is regularly on the other side from the majority on porn issues, but SGB is able to stand her ground.

Other posters like scottishmummy and exoticfruits have also taken bashings. I would prefer it didn't occur, but sometimes it does when tempers are raised. I am glad it hasn't stopped scottishmummy coming back and posting again. I want the widest participation with all views represented. I am often in the minority on the politics board, and sometimes get abuse from progressives and global warmers. I would prefer it if they could listen to alternative views without reacting like that, but it happens.

I said "Milly, Lenin etc" - Milly and Lenin had stood out as particularly willing to engage that was all - yes, by inference some poster aren't reasonable - that is the case all over the boards. You chose to ascribe that to the ones being attacked.

I did not use the terms "bitchfest" to suggest anything about individual posters. Once again, that was a meaning you chose to ascribe to it. Posters from the Feminist boards who were defending those being attacked said that the thread had taken on a bullying tone - I agree, it had, and I did not get involved in it. However, I did not take that to automatically mean that all of the posters who had a issues with the feminist board were bully's because that was not what was being said and it would have been disingenuous to do so. I just wish you could have paid me the same courtesy.

I am sorry that you cannot see the very real distinction between people who choose to use and distort equalism as a way of undermining women's rights and the philosophy itself which is, on gender issues, the same as egalitarianism and shares a lot of the feminist aims.

How can a concept and philosophy which has been around for 200 years be a trick to undermine a movement that has been around for 140 years?

IMO it really does make you no better than those who see the most radical, fringe elements of feminism and apply it to all feminists.

sorry, I just think it's like running to the teacher, a bit like a tell-tale. But it's up to you.

lenak, yes it's my interpretation, my understanding. I can only use my understanding, not yours, since I see things differently to you.

I brought up the fact that egalitarianism is the real historical word, and egalitarians are most often socialists and even communists. I think egalitarianism is different to equalism. I think semantics matter.

Equalism is a term that is used widely by MRA, egalitarianism isn't. I don't think they are the same thing, which is why they use different terminology.

"I didn't wish to deflect your attack on me"

How exactly did I attack you?

It felt personal for me because equated equalism and MRAs, refering to MRA 'types'. You then referenced the AIBU thread on which you had suggested multiple times directly and indirectly that I had something to do with MRA's as well as suggesting I would be more at home on MRA boards.

Please can you point out which part of my post you felt was a personal attack on you rather than an attempt to correct what I believe is a misguided assumption about my views on your part?

You are right I misinterpreted your response, it wasn't an attack, you were just pointing out that I was confusing equalism with MRAs.

But when I mentioned MRA types, I wasn't referring to you.

'an attempt to correct what I believe is a misguided assumption about my views on your part?'
I wasn't referring to your views.

'Why are you quoting my own post back at me, I have already made that statement myself further down the thread?'

I didn't realise you had said it. Is it a direct quote of yours? I would be surprised if it were.

The main difference between equalism and egalitarianism is, as you say, egalitarianism is based on socialist economic principals.

Equalism is based on capitalism economic principals.

On gender issues, they are virtually the same.

I would suggest that the reason the MRA's use / distort equalism rather than egalitarianism is because we live in a capitalist society - I don't know for sure because I have never visited any MRA boards.

Unless they are also pushing a Marxist agenda, egalitarianism probably doesn't apply.

I use a combination of the two, because I have both socialist and capitalist view points depending on the issue at hand (I am a socially left wing, but economically mid-right wing) plus equalist is easier to say and type

I don't know if you saw my last post on the AIBU thread but I tried to explain why I used equalist / egalitarian rather than feminist. I will post it again in the hope that you may understand where I (and maybe others on here who have identified as equalists rather than feminists) are coming from. I am hoping it will seem less sinister and therefore not sour further debates:

"I do not self-identify as a feminist because of genuine reasons within my philosophical stance which I do not feel are compatible with calling myself a feminist. I do not frame my views on inequality through a gendered oriented lense, I do not believe that quotas are the way to achieving equality and I do not feel equality can be achieved if it is framed through a reference of righting past wrongs.

While these things form part of my own personal philosophy, it would be disengenious to both myself and to Feminism to claim to be a feminist because these are fundamental differences - therefore I don't. However, none of that means that I do not want equality, nor does it mean that I do not recognise that women still get a raw deal, no matter how many times some radical feminists tell me it does.

I use the term equalist or egalitarian because at the moment, they seem to fit most comfortably with my personal philosophy although I don't agree with every aspect of it. I would prefer not to use labels at all, but recognise that they are a useful shorthand for identifying positions, and until something better comes along, for me, equalist or egalitarian is it.

That does not make me an MRA (I had never even heard the term until this thread), it does not make me a misogynist, it does not make me an 'anti-feminist'. MRA's may also call themselves equalists, just as some man haters call themselves feminists. It does not mean that everyone who uses the label shares the views of those on the extreme fringes.

There are a lot of equality issues in which I share feminist concerns - of particular and personal interest to me is women's role in child-rearing and the workplace - it is just that I may have different ideas and approaches to how these could best be tackled. In the end, I think we are all striving for the same outcome."

'Unless they are also pushing a Marxist agenda, egalitarianism probably doesn't apply.'

from what I have seen of their views they are not Marxists, they are right wing. They don't believe in big government etc., and on that I agree with them. But I think they have distorted views on feminism and other issues.

They most likely do. As I said, I've never visited one of their boards.

My only objection is the tarring of all equalists with the MRA brush, just because some idiots choose to misappropriate the term to hide their true intentions.

It's no different to the way the EDL or BNP manipulate genuine debates on race, immigration and multiculturalism etc in order to convince people to join their cause and mask their racist motives.

OK, well I would say you are a feminist who disagrees with some feminists on certain issues. It is a broad church. Not sure why you need to draw the distinction with equalist.

There is no established movement for equalists, they don't hold conferences and meetings. Equalist isn't even a term that appears on wikipedia. Therefore my guess is it will achieve diddley squat. If it ever grows then I believe it will be taken over by forces who are opposed to equality (possibly even MRA types). It sounds like classic Orwellian tactics, a bit like the Ministry of Truth.

There may be some people who call themselves feminists who choose not to see gender equality through the female lense, but most do.

Arguments for quotas in the workplace also seem to be a fairly mainstream feminist argument.

I also do not agree, from a philosophical view point, with the way that the word patriarchy is used.

It would be easier to call myself a feminist to avoid the arguments and necessary defence of my views which saying that I am not a feminist seem to cause. However, I respect feminism too much for that, even though I do not agree with certain elements which I see as fundmental to it - to call myself a feminist would feel disrespectful to my own views and to feminism. It would possibly also be a little hypocritical which is something I hate and try to avoid.

To put a slightly more twee angle on it - for me, it would be like getting married in a church, even though I disagree with the religion.

"Equalist isn't even a term that appears on wikipedia."

Have you typed equalism into google or the wiki search bar - the first result that comes up is egalitarianism.

As I've said - its because, apart from the economic viewpoint, they are virtually identical.

For me, and I suspect for other (true) equalists it is not a movement, it is a philosophy. There are existing movements to address various elements of the equalist philosophy - it would be foolish to try and set up a new movement and divide the energy. Much better to fight together on issues with which we agree and discuss / compromise / fight separately only on the issues with which we disagree.

As a point of interest, are you aware that some people who view themselves as both equalists and feminists are now calling themselves Fourth Wave Feminists (or First Wave Equalists).

yes I did that on teh AIBU thread. Of course egalitarianism is a well-established political socialist philosophy, but equalism doesn't appear on wikipedia, and strangely enough equalism appears in lost of places used by MRA types.

No I'm not aware of that. I had never heard of equalists before that thread when four or five posters were equalists. But to my mind all this fourth wave, fifth wave, new wave stuff is all a distraction and weakens the cause.

Wow. I am not sure I have time to search through 474+ threads to see when the discussion diverged, but I just thought I would comment that many laws, and decisions about laws seem to be made without thinking outside the common practices and traditions of a particular generation/culture/religion region or state or country. It's too bad really. Lost here is the fact that a young man and women, presumably consenting, made love. What a shame that they can't share in the future of that decisionjust because we in the "western" world have decided to define childhood as something that ends when, at 25? It is one thing to protect women from rape. It is another thing to make laws that actually go against the very nature of what it is to be human.