Are men finished? Will our new female overlords be kind?

[Emergent]

Nobody ever said it was all men, but rape culture exists and the majority isn't working very hard to stop it. Read this: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html

Emphasis mine. I wish that were true, Hipster. It might help to remember that when a woman needs protection from a rapist, much more often than not it's a man that provides it. Painting us all with one brush is not necessarily the best strategic option for women.

 

[Caverat]

Ok, what if she doesn't remember what happened clearly? What if she doesn't remember saying yes?

I didn't say anything about charging anyone with a crime, in fact I believe I said that a rape charge would be almost impossible to prove in a criminal court. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a rape actually occurred. I'd much rather prevent the rape in the first place than try to punish a rapist after the fact.

If she doesn't remember saying yes, it doesn't mean she said no.

What I meant by the charge of rape thing was also the accusation of being a rapist. Admittedly, he's an asshole for taking advantage of a drunk person, but he's not a rapist because she only consented due to intoxication. Again, specifically referring to someone who specifically consents to sex while drunk. It's not rape if both parties consented at the moment, even if one or both of their memories are foggy the next morning.

 

[cobra_ky]

Ok, what if she doesn't remember what happened clearly? What if she doesn't remember saying yes?

I didn't say anything about charging anyone with a crime, in fact I believe I said that a rape charge would be almost impossible to prove in a criminal court. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a rape actually occurred. I'd much rather prevent the rape in the first place than try to punish a rapist after the fact.

If she doesn't remember saying yes, it doesn't mean she said no.

What I meant by the charge of rape thing was also the accusation of being a rapist. Admittedly, he's an asshole for taking advantage of a drunk person, but he's not a rapist because she only consented due to intoxication. Again, specifically referring to someone who specifically consents to sex while drunk. It's not rape if both parties consented at the moment, even if one or both of their memories are foggy the next morning.

Call it what you like. I'm opposed to asshole behavior in general so whether you want to call it rape or not doesn't really matter to me. I just don't think consent given while extremely drunk is really good consent, however.

Every time I've seen that single digit stat it always included low reporting rates to get that number. And whose fault is that?

Every time I've seen that single digit stat it always included low reporting rates to get that number. And whose fault is that?

It's the fault of a culture that discourages reporting rape. A sort of "rape culture", if you will.

I will not.

"I blame society" is the easiest cop out you can ever give when you have no idea what the cause is. But yeah surely it's not the fault of the people who fail to act.

I have plenty of ideas about what the cause is. It's because when rape victims report being raped, they're often ignored, accused of lying, and/or blamed for it. It's because few result in cases being brought to trial and fewer result in convictions. It's because it involves reliving a whole hell of a lot of trauma for little to no gain.

You know, this is all in that big list you ignored earlier.

 

[F4LL3N]

Men aren't finished. Both sexes are simply equalizing. Testostrone in men has been decreasing every year. When a man becomes a father his testostrone level decreases by twice that of a man without a child, it's a natural occurance that helps men do their parently duties. It's a lot more acceptable for a man to be feminine then it was it the past. It's a lot more acceptable to be gay. Women are also moving up in society.

 

[Emergent]

I have plenty of ideas about what the cause is. It's because when rape victims report being raped, they're often ignored, accused of lying, and/or blamed for it. It's because few result in cases being brought to trial and fewer result in convictions. It's because it involves reliving a whole hell of a lot of trauma for little to no gain.

If reported immediately, a rape is actually strikingly easy to prove. Semen deposits (or even oil/powder residue from a condom) plus vaginal tearing + any kind of defensive wounds is pretty much a slam dunk. Without the defensive wounds, it gets a bit trickier (it is possible to threaten a woman into giving a form of consent that does not hold up in court, after all), but typically if a woman is raped and gets to a medical rape kit right off the bat proving that sex was forced on her is actually pretty easy (and routine).

If she waits too long, takes a shower, has sex with someone else, etc. in the meantime she destroys the evidence. Without evidence of rape, in the eyes of the law (assuming a fair jury, effective prosecution, competent defense, and an unbiased judge), there was no rape. This isn't some kind of double standard. It's also very hard to prosecute a murder without a body, or an assault without visible bruising.

Most alleged rape victims do not get a medical rape kit performed on them, which is why they are referred to as "alleged" victims as opposed to "victims." Education is the key here, not demonizing half the entire population.

 

[b3nn3tt]

According to consistent reports by the FBI, unfounded accusations make up about 8% of rape cases. Of course, "unfounded" just means that there is a lack of sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false. Factor that into the fact that between 75% and 95% of rapes are never reported, and that's an incredibly small number of women lying about being raped.

I've always wondered how they could possibly get the figure for unreported rapes. Surely by their very nature they shouldn't be quantifiable?

 

[Caverat]

Call it what you like. I'm opposed to asshole behavior in general so whether you want to call it rape or not doesn't really matter to me. I just don't think consent given while extremely drunk is really good consent, however.

I'm there with you, I behave by a strict code, and I believe other men should abide by something similar.

I understand you don't want women to be taken advantage of, but drunken consent is consent. If individuals didn't want to have sex they would not have sex, regardless of their blood alcohol percentage.

People who allow their judgement to be impaired by substances they willfully in-bide must face the consequences of actions they take while effected by those substances. Just because a woman is drunk when she has sex does not mean it is rape, even if she regrets it later. That applies to everyone, regardless of gender.

Again, to avoid confusion, I strictly mean consensual sex between conscious participants.

 

[cobra_ky]

I have plenty of ideas about what the cause is. It's because when rape victims report being raped, they're often ignored, accused of lying, and/or blamed for it. It's because few result in cases being brought to trial and fewer result in convictions. It's because it involves reliving a whole hell of a lot of trauma for little to no gain.

If reported immediately, a rape is actually strikingly easy to prove. Semen deposits (or even oil/powder residue from a condom) plus vaginal tearing + any kind of defensive wounds is pretty much a slam dunk. Without the defensive wounds, it gets a bit trickier (it is possible to threaten a woman into giving a form of consent that does not hold up in court, after all), but typically if a woman is raped and gets to a medical rape kit right off the bat proving that sex was forced on her is actually pretty easy (and routine).

If she waits too long, takes a shower, has sex with someone else, etc. in the meantime she destroys the evidence. Without evidence of rape, in the eyes of the law (assuming a fair jury, effective prosecution, competent defense, and an unbiased judge), there was no rape. This isn't some kind of double standard. It's also very hard to prosecute a murder without a body, or an assault without visible bruising.

Most alleged rape victims do not get a medical rape kit performed on them, which is why they are referred to as "alleged" victims as opposed to "victims." Education is the key here, not demonizing half the entire population.

There's always the "She liked it rough" defense, and I think you're underestimating the number of cases involving coercion without violence. You're absolutely right that there needs to be more access to rape kits and better information about them. You're also right that demonizing half the population is unproductive, which is why i make an effort not to do that.

Also, in the absence of evidence, I don't think it's fair to say "there was no rape." In the eyes of the law, there is insufficient evidence to prove a rape occurred, and therefore insufficient grounds to punish the accused.

Call it what you like. I'm opposed to asshole behavior in general so whether you want to call it rape or not doesn't really matter to me. I just don't think consent given while extremely drunk is really good consent, however.

I'm there with you, I behave by a strict code, and I believe other men should abide by something similar.

I understand you don't want women to be taken advantage of, but drunken consent is consent. If individuals didn't want to have sex they would not have sex, regardless of their blood alcohol percentage.

People who allow their judgement to be impaired by substances they willfully in-bide must face the consequences of actions they take while effected by those substances. Just because a woman is drunk when she has sex does not mean it is rape, even if she regrets it later. That applies to everyone, regardless of gender.

Again, to avoid confusion, I strictly mean consensual sex between conscious participants.

People whose judgment is impaired by substances they unknowingly imbibe aren't held responsible for their actions, even if they say "yes". I don't see why choosing to drink makes that "yes" any more valid. It just means that whoever they're sleeping with isn't necessarily responsible for coercing them.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Despite a feminist persistence that women are still somehow subjugated in America, it's clear that even if you think this - women are catching up. And fast. More women attend college now than men, the wage gap is either closing or completely nonexistent if you account for things like women being free to stay home and raise children while it is still culturally unacceptable for men to do so (or to take time off from work to help raise a child) - etc.

Slate magazine is doing an interesting online debate on this:

http://www.slate.com/id/2303488/

Please *don't* reply to the thread with a knee jerk response until you read the link to understand my point for posting this. Thank you in advance. (The last time I tried posting a link 75% of the people couldn't be bothered to click on it, read it, and understand what the heck I was talking about before responding full of outrage and bluster.)

Ahem.

Anyway, Slate is hosting an online debate and while I don't expect everyone here to partake, it's an interesting theory. Some choice tidbits from the article:

Women now earn the majority of college degrees. Men play video games. Women thrive in information-age jobs. Men go to prison. Women hold families together. Men watch football. On Tuesday, Sept. 20, the Slate/Intelligence Squared U.S. live debate series will ask and answer a fundamental question about modern society: Are men finished?

And I think for a long time the question has been... are they? More and more people, in fact, for the first time ever - a majority of people - in the U.S. have stated that they would prefer a female child to a male child for their own family. Schools seem set up to teach to girls, not boys. (Boys are medicated with ADHD medication, apparently a disease that "afflicts" 9% of the boys in America but only 1/50th of that in Japan - must be something in the U.S. water supply.)

If you're interested in Slate's debate, this is another blurb:

The debate proposition is "men are finished." What does that actually mean? A modern, post-industrial economy that seems better suited to women than men has led many experts to wonder if men are being permanently left behind.

So is that how the future will be? Are men finished?

Will our new female overlords be kind?

Mmm, I wonder how that would be. The first society that comes to mind when we are talking about women running things is Drow society.

That's what I thought of too but I don't think a human matriarchal society that lives on the surface world would be like that.
Things definitely are changing and I for one think it's about time. But I don't think we're going to become a matriarchal society...just more equal.
And that's what it should come down to. I've worked with many women across a couple of industries and just like men, some of them are brilliant and some are morons, some are hard working and some are lazy.
And I see families where the woman makes more and the man stays at home to raise the kids. And just like women, some of them do a good job raising kids, and some of them would rather let the tv do the parenting.
So yes things are changing but no, I don't think it will make too much of a difference...yet. It might change things for the better when the change really infuses into the world/government stage. Women seem less hardwired for warfare than men.
Maybe George Carlin was right and all warfare is based in penile insecurities. We'll see.

 

[Zeriah]

Its not a crime. If your accused of rape, you are basically blacklisted. You cant wipe that off, and you cannot jail someone. You get a small amount of cash (if you take the person to court over defamation of character), but that wont get you work or anything. It basically means your life is over, and the person who ruined your life gets nothing but a slap on the wrist. This is why emotion is so dangerous, people jump the gun without using reason and logic. Even a conviction does not mean he may have actually done it as juries are prone to go by emotion than by healthy skepticism and evidence.

Hell, American courts resemble the courts of the Salem witch trials than anything else. The juries just makes things worse. Its a literal cluster fuck of pure emotional fervor.

According to consistent reports by the FBI, unfounded accusations make up about 8% of rape cases. Of course, "unfounded" just means that there is a lack of sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false. Factor that into the fact that between 75% and 95% of rapes are never reported, and that's an incredibly small number of women lying about being raped.

Does this 8% include only the amount of cases where the victim admitted as much or were proved not guilty in a court of law, or does it also include the number of people who have been convicted of rape but were in fact innocent and were never exonerated? Rape is probably the crime that is most difficult to prove one way or another, just by it's very definition there are so many loop holes in it that vary widely from place to place. A lot of people will be sitting in jail right now who never raped anybody, just the same as there will be a lot of people sitting on their couch knowing they got away with rape. If it's the later it will be a different number than 8%, though obviously we can never know exactly what that number is.

 

[Emergent]

There's always the "She liked it rough" defense, and I think you're underestimating the number of cases involving coercion without violence. You're absolutely right that there needs to be more access to rape kits and better information about them. You're also right that demonizing half the population is unproductive, which is why i make an effort not to do that.

Also, in the absence of evidence, I don't think it's fair to say "there was no rape." In the eyes of the law, there is insufficient evidence to prove a rape occurred, and therefore insufficient grounds to punish the accused.

To the first paragraph: It's possible for a medical professional to tell the difference between rough sex and rape, typically because of something called vaginismus. There's a difference between being "handled roughly" and being "handled roughly against your will."

Since I didn't provide a figure, I'm pretty sure you have no idea if I'm underestimating anything about how often coercion without violence happens. I could be just a knee-jerk and point out that "coercion without violence" is a kind of rape that can as easily happen to a man as to a women, and that the chances of it happening are about the same for both sexes. The chances of it being perpetrated are about the same for both sexes.

I don't see why choosing to drink makes that "yes" any more valid.

I don't even know where to begin. This is akin to those feminist blogs that claim ANY form of heterosexual intercourse supports rape. So over the top that it doesn't really even warrant a retort. Just roll your eyes and move on.

 

[The Gnome King]

Seriously bro, do you have any idea what Sudanese genital cutting involves? A simple clitoral nick?

You're talking about two different operations entirely. The "clitoral nick" was a gesture recommended by *United States* physicians as a nod to certain religious traditions to PREVENT full-on clitoral removal or mutilation.

Women's rights groups got up in arms about it, but somehow they have no problem with removing an entire foreskin. And yet a clitoral nick is a sterile, medical procedure that can be performed by doctors in 1st world countries that satisfies religious tradition much as Jewish faith calls for male circumcision.

It would be like offering to ritually "nick" a boy's foreskin at birth as opposed to removing it completely; which I'd be all for - calling it a step in the right direction.

I don't support the mutilation of the genitals of either gender, for what it's worth.

 

[The Gnome King]

for what they perceive as years of oppression, or something.

Oh, right...those hundreds of years of being considered the property of men, not being able to vote or own our own property, not having access to education, being haunted by physical abuse and marital rape...we just imagined all of that.

I'm not saying women should "get men back", but maybe if you lot started to own the fuck up to what you've done for most of history, so many wouldn't want to.

Do you have a father? Brother? Son? Husband?

Might you someday?

If so, it is really in your own best interest to want equal rights; and why would you want your son to "own the fuck up" for what *other* men and *other* societies have done in the past? Should he be disadvantaged or disenfranchised due to no fault of his own?

An article you might find interesting if you take the time to read it, by The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/

And a book, written by a woman, you might find equally interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684849577/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=slatmaga-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=0684849577

It's called "The War Against Boys" and should be required reading for anybody with a young son.

 

[The Gnome King]

You are correct that men are viewed differently by some segments of society when they choose to stay home. But that isn't misandry, it's a clue that we are not equals yet and feminism still has a ways to go. The reason i say feminism and not masculism is that the reason those segments of society see you as 'less of a man' is easy if you break it down. Saying 'less of a man' suggests that you are being less than something obviously, in this case a man. So you are less than a man. What act is it that makes you less than a man? An act that has traditionally been seen as female work. So what society is essentially telling you by making you feel bad for staying at home is: "Staying at home with the kids is womens work and women are less then men, so the fact that you choose to do this work, means you think like a woman. Therefore you are no different than a woman and as such worth less than a man." Feminism has a long way to go and it's for men's benefit as well.

We'll talk when it's equally acceptable for a man to stay at home and raise children. Since you post a lot on these gender-based threads, and because I don't want these particular two links to get lost in the shuffle, I'll re-post them for you:

An article you might find interesting if you take the time to read it, by The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/

And a book, written by a woman, you might find equally interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684849577/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=slatmaga-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=0684849577

It's called "The War Against Boys" and should be required reading for anybody with a young son.

The article from The Atlantic is, I think at the very least worth your time since you seem so interested in gender politics.

 

[The Gnome King]

(Boys are medicated with ADHD medication, apparently a disease that "afflicts" 9% of the boys in America but only 1/50th of that in Japan - must be something in the U.S. water supply.)

This isn't a sex concern, but rather a cultural concern, with such a silly amount of factors it's not even worth going the full mile to address it.

Actually, it's both a cultural and a gender based concern. Japan has its own issues with gender politics right now, but at least they aren't over-medicating their boys.

If boys and girls were being equally over-medicated in the US - which they are not - it would be simply a cultural concern, yes.

 

[The Gnome King]

Will our new female overlords be kind?

That depends. Will you stay in the kitchen unless called for? If we ask for sandwiches will you provide them?

Yes, as long as you go to work all day, face traffic and asshole bosses, keep a roof over my head and buy me diamonds.

I will *gladly* stay home, in the kitchen, and make you sandwiches. Naked even, if you want.

 

[cobra_ky]

There's always the "She liked it rough" defense, and I think you're underestimating the number of cases involving coercion without violence. You're absolutely right that there needs to be more access to rape kits and better information about them. You're also right that demonizing half the population is unproductive, which is why i make an effort not to do that.

Also, in the absence of evidence, I don't think it's fair to say "there was no rape." In the eyes of the law, there is insufficient evidence to prove a rape occurred, and therefore insufficient grounds to punish the accused.

To the first paragraph: It's possible for a medical professional to tell the difference between rough sex and rape, typically because of something called vaginismus. There's a difference between being "handled roughly" and being "handled roughly against your will."

Vaginismus can result from plenty of other causes besides rape, and it certainly isn't always going to be present. Medical evidence can certainly go a long way towards corroborating a victim's story, but it isn't going to be conclusive in every case.

Since I didn't provide a figure, I'm pretty sure you have no idea if I'm underestimating anything about how often coercion without violence happens. I could be just a knee-jerk and point out that "coercion without violence" is a kind of rape that can as easily happen to a man as to a women, and that the chances of it happening are about the same for both sexes. The chances of it being perpetrated are about the same for both sexes.

it's an inference i drew, based on how you've been talking about physical trauma as if it's simple presence or absence were sufficient to determine rape. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.

I could be just a knee-jerk and point out that "coercion without violence" is a kind of rape that can as easily happen to a man as to a women,

you could, and I would completely agree with you, on this point at least.

and that the chances of it happening are about the same for both sexes. The chances of it being perpetrated are about the same for both sexes.

On these two claims, i'd have to see some statistics that bore them out before i accepted them as fact. But that's more or less academic; rape is bad regardless of the genders involved.

I don't see why choosing to drink makes that "yes" any more valid.

I don't even know where to begin. This is akin to those feminist blogs that claim ANY form of heterosexual intercourse supports rape. So over the top that it doesn't really even warrant a retort. Just roll your eyes and move on.

I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. If you'd only consent while under the influence of a mind-altering substance, then i don't think that's really consent. I'm not even talking about what you consider rape any more.

 

[Emergent]

Cobra: Not going to do the point-by-point quoting, too much effort for too little return, but I will attempt to reply in summary.

Your first sentence is completely irrelevant, since we are already only discussing the limited cases of vaginismus resulting from forced sexual penetration. Even if we were not, you present your argument as such that the second sentence follows as a result of the first, and that is not true, either. Of course evidence can be questioned, that's what the trial is about. That's why we have trials.

As to what inferences you drew, those are on you. Let's please keep to things the other actually says.

If you wish to find statistics, they are abundant and readily available. If you have trouble believing them, rather than assuming a patriarchal bias in the research you might wish to consider that not all men who are raped are fully grown when it happens, which subverts the typically assumed "man stronger, woman weaker, therefore it is man who rapes woman" paradigm for rape accusations. Further, because men are, on average, even less willing than women to admit that they have been coerced or forced into unwanted sex, the chances that the cases go unreported in even higher numbers than they go unreported for women can not be ignored. All just academic, of course.

No, we're probably not talking about the same thing. You might wish to educate yourself as to the meaning of the word "choose." If you voluntarily alter your brain state, and then make another voluntary decision while in that brain state, you have indeed still made a choice.