no one has argued there is no differences between men but its absurd to argue its an abstract concept.

Until then if you feel guilty yourself and feel the need to some how make reparations by positive discrimination (which is what you seem to be advocating)

Straw man – he has clearly said women have been discriminated and in the transitionary stage some men – the luddites amongst us – will feel insecure and threatened. Which do you wish to argue against women have not been treated equally or that you are not feeling insecure and threatened by this?
“positive discrimination” is a very strange phrase to use in the context of an adult debate about rape.

then that’s your choice but please don’t include me in your plans or your set of ‘men’ that caused the problem because I am not one of them.

clearly you have been at the forefront for gender equality and men and women everywhere thank you for your sterling efforts in this area.
Essentially women have been treated poorly and unfairly, Its slowly becoming more equal. If you cannot accept this nor embrace then you really do have issues you need to address

Tom if you dont understand what consent is then you have some very serious issues to address.

I am fairly confident non guardian readers are able to only have sex with folk who consent. You strike me as the sort of person who deos not read the guardian – ever struggled to work out whether the person was consenting ? Have you remained worried as you dont know what it means and you are not really sure they consented?

This kind of case is full of a million shades of grey, there’s nothing that can be done to avoid that… but when historically the balance has been extremely one sided, the least we can do is pull in the other direction hoping we can correct it.

Nope, I don’t agree – unless it’s beyond reasonable doubt then we shouldn’t be putting people away to make an example to society. You sound like something out of Chinas cultural revoloution. This seems like an attempt to control culture and morality and apply a dogma through the use of the law, instead of the other way around.

An interesting little, kind of related topic.

http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-review/article/the-cultural-turn/18699#.V9Hupq0neUk

Tom if you dont understand what consent is then you have some very serious issues to address.

You’re a squarking fool of a true believer Junkyard and you’d be a dangerous one at that, if you ever have any position of power. Stop attempting to smear anyone who disagrees with you as a rapist.

Neither am I, but whether we like it or not we are members of the group that currently has all the power, so must bear more of the responsibility.

What power exactly? All men are members of this group how? You mean white men or all men or only affluent men? Do white affluent females have more power than poor brown men? Why the need to split all people on the planet into two groups based on their sex and all the generalisations that entails? Preposterous.

Behind these outbreaks of self-righteous wrath is a distinct if somewhat amorphous ideology we could dub “SocJus.” (The callback to “IngSoc” from George Orwell’s 1984 is not quite coincidental.) At the center of this worldview is the evil of oppression, the virtue of “marginalized” identities—based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion or disability—and the perfectionist quest to eliminate anything the marginalized may perceive as oppressive or “invalidating.” Such perceptions are given a near-absolute presumption of validity, even if shared by a fraction of the “oppressed group.” Meanwhile, the viewpoints of the “privileged”—a category that includes economically disadvantaged whites, especially men—are radically devalued.

The Totalitarian Doctrine of ‘Social Justice Warriors’

Just so that we’re all clear in regards to the kind of rabid dogma that Junkyard ascribes to – do we really want people like this influencing the judicial system? What will be the next law where the burden is proof of lowered, in order to coerce public attitudes?

He and his ilk seem to have resurrected the medieval concept of blood libel, which was used as a weapon to persecute the Jews for centuries. You’re “responsible” for “oppressing” people, because of unfortunate things that have happened in the past, that you had absolutely nothing to do with. Finally, they have even brought back the Catholic concept of “original sin,” because “privileged people” are born with the sin of “privilege” and have a duty to self-flagellate like our friend Phiil in order to make up for it.

Nastiest thread in quite some time. Eurgh. 😕

but whether we like it or not we are members of the group that currently has all the power, so must bear more of the responsibility.

That’s the same argument that was used to justify racial profiling and look how that turned out. It’s a facile and reductionist approach that is entirely counterproductive to creating a fairer and more equal society.

You make a fairer and more equal society by looking at which groups are treated unfairly. Men, as a group, are not treated unfairly, women are.

The things that MRA people complain about – greater levels of violent deaths in men, for instance – are usually things done to men by other men.

That’s the same argument that was used to justify racial profiling and look how that turned out. It’s a facile and reductionist approach that is entirely counterproductive to creating a fairer and more equal society.

Its always amusing when folk use big words to sound clever – all the more so when they dont really know what the mean and they dont bother to be restrained by the argument making sense.
Its an absurd thing to say that saying men hold/held the power and we were the ones who oppressed women is the same as racial profiling. Its blatantly chalk and cheese

the facile thing here is to claim men are under threat because women are being raped an the conviction rate is shit. Women are still the overwhelming majority of the victims here

FWIW I bet the same arguments, you are espousing , were put forth when we were making it illegal for a husband to rape his wife 🙄

Stop attempting to smear anyone who disagrees with you as a rapist.

By pointing out that you did not have any problem ensuring consent was obtained – you really are dumb I was using you to negate your own crap argument. Here it is slowly for you.
Your argument was it was only guardian readers who understood consent- and you were asking for clarity about what it meant as you were ” confused”
My point was to prove that you did understand consent and it was not the preserve of “guardian readers” as even morons could get consent.

The very point was that YOU were not a rapist and you did understand consent who knew sexists were dumb eh who knew…insert points and laugh pic here.

There is no such thing as men as a group. If you want to split the entire population of earth into two groups then do it by the haves and the have nots. We might start to get somewhere then.

Geetee, can you just summarise in one line what you are concerned about?

There is no such thing as men as a group

Interesting theory. Do you also believe that other species do not have two distinct sexes?

Don’t be ridiculous. Distinction between two sexes is one thing. Grouping everyone together on basis of sex and making sweeping generalisations is another.

Well, it’s comparable to any other power imbalance isn’t it? Same as white/black people, cyclists/motorists etc. I’m sure in each case there are individuals who treat each other with respect, but as a class one has significant power over the other.

Not to recognise this is a bit blinkered I think.

No, I think it’s a never ending argument that people getting caught up in it are distracted by. Meanwhile the real people taking advantage of the power go about their business increasing that power and taking advantage whilst everyone else is bickering about black vs white, men vs women etc.

There is no such thing as men as a group.

You must have a lot of fun on dates if you cannot split the world by gender
to say we are a groups is not to say we are indistinguishable from each other or to claim we are a homogenous entity [ except on gender]

I really dont understand how anyone wants to argue there is no such thing as men

Grouping everyone together on basis of sex and making sweeping generalisations is another.

What like there is no such thing as them or only the sweeping statements you dont like?

No one has said there is no differences between men what they have said is that women , in general, are treated less favourably /are “oppressed” in relation to men

As this is so blatantly true they seem intent to avoid the point being discussed and debate whether there is such a thing as “Men”- which is again a blindingly obvious simple point no one can really dispute

EDIT: I am not sure why we have to play a top trumps of oppression- yes other forms of oppression exist. I doubt a raped woman who fails to get a conviction is most angry about capitalism
Start another thread and discuss this issue will you as its just whatabouterry.

No, I think it’s a never ending argument that people getting caught up in it are distracted by. Meanwhile the real people taking advantage of the power go about their business increasing that power and taking advantage whilst everyone else is bickering about black vs white, men vs women etc.

I disagree. I think these issues are too important to disregard as bickering and distractions. Considering the abuse that the “out groups” are subject to on a daily basis, and the pain and distress they suffer I think that’s a pretty heartless point of view.

I don’t think I am heartless. Quite the opposite. I am all for equality and ending oppression, but generalising that one group made up of 50% of the planet is oppressing the other 50% doesn’t cut it.

So you don’t think that they is a problem with male oppression of females?

The stats that are regularly trotted out about the relative wealth of the genders, the poor rape/abuse reporting conviction rates, the glass ceilings, the religious mysoginy, the gendered bias of domestic violence, the media skew on female sexual objectification, the gender imbalance that starts at birth. All of this is not true? Really?

I’m not sure if I’m missing something here.

Edited to add – I’m not saying all males are oppressing all females. Although there are obviously indirect benefits to those males that aren’t, and to be honest most is probably subconscious anyway…

but generalising that one group made up of 50% of the planet is oppressing the other 50% doesn’t cut it.

The group of males is oppressing the group of females- the evidence is overwhelming – this is not to say every single male oppresses women. However in the lottery of life males win as the world is sexist.

I am not sure denying reality/facts is a great way to end oppression.
EDIT: what he said now he has edited- crossed posts we did not see each others posts for clarity

I think there is a problem with oppression full stop. Lumping all people of the same sex or colour together as a collective isn’t going to fix the problem.

I think there is a problem with oppression full stop. Lumping all people of the same sex or colour together as a collective isn’t going to fix the problem.

If the problem is systemic, which it is in this case, a systemic solution is needed. You cannot treat each individual on a case by case basis when the entirety of society is the problem. The structures we have in place: law, judiciary, police, social norms/rules, media etc. all display and operate within this oppressive framework, they all need to be tackled as they are, for want of a better phrase, a “reflection on the society that produced them”.

The sooner men, white people, or whoever is the beneficiary of this oppression, as a class (and as individuals for that matter so not disregarding your approach), recognise this the better.

I don’t see any other way it can be tackled, but I’m open to ideas?

Its not a very good argument not least because the distinction you wish to ignore is the basis for the oppression

In south Africa the whites were oppressing the blacks based on racial divides. I am not sure how ignoring this fact helps us stop the oppression.

the police were oppressing blacks due to institutional racism – are you saying it would have got better if we just ignored the racial aspect to this?

#greatcoffeetimeamusement
#bravoatous

So you don’t think that they is a problem with male oppression of females?

No I really don’t, not in this country at least. Around the world that statement gets closer to the truth but it’s still not the truth.

I would agree that there is a problem with ‘some’ men oppressing ‘some’ women and that in this country the set of men doing the oppressing and the set of women being oppressed is incredibly small relatively to the total population. So small in fact that to use gender as a differentiating and causal characteristic is inaccurate and misleading, at least as far as correctly identifying the problem and classifying it as a significant issues in need of redress.

Defining the argument as being a problem caused by ‘men’, suggests that our gender has something to do with the oppression; that it is a causal factor and thus that being male means you’re more likely to be guilty of that. This is what I mean by reductionist and this is what I mean by it being same reductionist argument used to justify racial profiling. It’s saying that because black men are over represented in the criminal population, therefore we are justified in using racial profiling for things like stop and search. It ignores factors other than race in why that population is over represented hence racial profiling is inherently racist, just as arguing that changing the judicial process such that it favours women at the expense of men (with regard to their equal access to justice and the judicial process) is a form of sexual discrimination against men.

But a much bigger problem than gender inequality in this country is inequality based on other dimensions such as wealth, status, power and culture. You’re almost as likely as a man in the UK to be overlooked, passed by ignored or otherwise marginalised because of your personality, your social status, your income etc as you are a women because of your gender and the data proves this. The gender pay gap on a like for like basis is only 9%, four percentage points from the margin of error and that differential could potentially be accounted for by the simple fact that men change jobs more frequently than women. That tells us that in the work place at least, inequality as something that men do to women, (rather than women choose for themselves) is disappearing or it may even have disappeared.

Now around the world this story is different, but the whole point of this thread was that it was focused on what is happening in this country.

Its always amusing when folk use big words to sound clever

That’s a bit childish isn’t it? I’m very confident in my own intelligence and it’s not even like the words I used are big.

I would agree that there is a problem with ‘some’ men oppressing ‘some’ women and that in this country the set of men doing the oppressing and the set of women being oppressed is incredibly small relatively to the total population. So small in fact that to use gender as a differentiating and causal characteristic is inaccurate and misleading, at least as far as correctly identifying the problem and classifying it as a significant issues in need of redress.

Except it seems that much of the data, and I admit it is difficult to collect data on unreported behaviour, suggests that this oppression is a constant and ongoing problem. If, as some surveys suggest, upto 75% of women experience serious sexual assault from men at some point then (IIRC about 30% are raped) this doesn’t appear to me to be incredibly small. This is discounting other behaviour such as verbal/emotional assault and domestic abuse without a sexual element and completely ignoring the gender expectations of society.

I think we disagree on the scale of the problem. The stats suggest it’s bigger than “some”, nationally and internationally.

Defining the argument as being a problem caused by ‘men’, suggests that our gender has something to do with the oppression; that it is a causal factor and thus that being male means you’re more likely to be guilty of that.

It is a problem caused primarily by men, who do you think is doing the oppressing? It has been demonstrated that males, across all sociodemographic groups are the perpetrators (and also the victims for most non sexual violence).

I don’t know enough about the legal process to make a judgement on whether I consider it “fair” or not. I’ll have a catch up, but I would be surprised if it unduly favoured women. Traditionally it has favoured men and it’s only been the last few years when it has been making steps to right that wrong. It doesn’t surprise me to learn that there are MRA groups who are upset at the prospect of losing their legal gender privelidge though!

Interesting article on the Gender Pay Gap 9% thing here:

https://www.eef.org.uk/campaigning/news-blogs-and-publications/blogs/2015/nov/the-gender-pay-gap-falls-to-94-but-the-devil-is-always-in-the-detail

These things are never as clear cut as first imagined! Also, I suppose it doesn’t account for the problems of actually getting into work in the first place (initially, then post maternity if that’s your bag). But that’s probably for another thread…

Defining the argument as being a problem caused by ‘men’, suggests that our gender has something to do with the oppression

You are right its women’s fault they dont get equal treatment and not mens

Rape is a caused by men. I have not accused all men of being rapists. I dont know why you cannot grasp the fact that it’s our gender that is doing it.

So small in fact that to use gender as a differentiating and causal characteristic is inaccurate and misleading,

so your basic argument is sexism is not caused by differences in gender and one group treating the other poorly – I genuinely cannot stop laughing at that

I am sure women everywhere are delighted to hear you tell them they dont experience sexism and its a tiny problem. DO you think they are over reacting becaus eyou know they are a bit emotional arent they

thus that being male means you’re more likely to be guilty of that

Men really are more likely to be guilty of it like white folk were more likely to be racist in South Africa. You read this as someone saying all men or all white people. Its not my fault you read something that is not being said by anyone but you

I’m very confident in my own intelligence

The test of intellignece is not how confident you are in it it is whether your argument is well argued, shows insight, makes sense, accurately depicts reality etc. Someone bright would know their confidence in their ability and the ability are not related
For example
I am very confident i am the best cyclist in the world- in what way do you consider this “Proof”?

Sexism is real
Not all men are sexists
Men have been the ones doing the oppressing

these are just facts and no one intelligent can deny this

Its always amusing when folk use big words to sound clever – all the more so when they dont really know what the mean and they dont bother to be restrained by the argument making sense.
Its an absurd thing to say that saying men hold/held the power and we were the ones who oppressed women is the same as racial profiling. Its blatantly chalk and cheese

the facile thing here is to claim men are under threat because women are being raped an the conviction rate is shit. Women are still the overwhelming majority of the victims here

FWIW I bet the same arguments, you are espousing , were put forth when we were making it illegal for a husband to rape his wife

No ones claiming men are under threat, what is being claimed is that the basic tenets of our rule of law are being undermined by excuses that appeal to emotion – whether it’s terrorism or rape. Your shrieking suggesting otherwise is doing you no favours.

Your excuse for this is that it’s okay, because “women are historically oppressed” – no one is arguing that they haven’t been, they’re arguing that this is a shit excuse to suspend basic principles of western justice.

a shit excuse to suspend basic principles of western justice.

Okay, I’ve just read the Telegraph article now, and I may be being a bit dim (not unusual) and I’m not a lawyer or legally trained, but I don’t understand how “conditional consent” could be used to suspend the basic principles of western justice.

Conditional consent seems pretty straightforward to me and why shouldn’t juries and the courts be delving into this level of detail if someone requires that be done? I really don’t see the issue. Anyone like to explain?

Okay, I’ve just read the Telegraph article now, and I may be being a bit dim (not unusual) and I’m not a lawyer or legally trained, but I don’t understand how “conditional consent” could be used to suspend the basic principles of western justice.

How do you prove continual verbal consent? And why is it now, on the defendant (not guilty until proven otherwise) to prove this? The burden should be on the prosecution or the state to prove the defendants guilt.

#AllLivesMatter

How do you prove continual verbal consent? And why is it now, on the defendant (not guilty until proven otherwise) to prove this? The burden should be on the prosecution or the state to prove the defendants guilt.

I didn’t think the article was claiming that the burden should be transferred, I read it that it was becoming more difficult for juries/the judiciary to distinguish consent from non-consent due to the changes made to the law.

I don’t see anything wrong with this, the old wording allowed for all manner of abuse to operate without being challengeable in court.

Proving continual verbal consent? I don’t know, I guess that’s one for the lawyers/judiciary to work out. I suppose the old ways of assuming consent (e.g. no marital rape law) and people knowing their “rightful” place in society are being challenged, rightly so, and we’re going through a transition period. The Law and the Legal System as a whole will need to transition too.

Spoken like a ture believer Peyote. If the coursts are finding it difficult to tell whether someone consented or not, then if what the articles state are true – that they are simply making a defense so hard that it’s incredibly difficult to be acquitted/found not guilty – then I think that there is an issue. Simply washing your hands of this because “it’s for the cause” is dangerous. It’s that attitude that really grates me, and one I see increasingly pervading society.

they are simply making a defense so hard that it’s incredibly difficult to be acquitted/found not guilty – then I think that there is an issue

Given the conviction rate is 56.9 % it seems incredibly unlikely your assessment is correct
Shall we discuss your scenario when it actually occurs?

Spoken like a ture believer Peyote. If the coursts are finding it difficult to tell whether someone consented or not, then if what the articles state are true – that they are simply making a defense so hard that it’s incredibly difficult to be acquitted/found not guilty – then I think that there is an issue. Simply washing your hands of this because “it’s for the cause” is dangerous. It’s that attitude that really grates me, and one I see increasingly pervading society.

Yeah, perhaps you’re right, and I agree “it’s for the cause” is a dangerous view and if it results in these kinds of issues occurring then I think it is right that they be challenged. Does it mean that we cannot question some of the basic tenets of western justice though? If they aren’t working (which they don’t seem to be) in some cases should they not be addressed?

Unfortunately it is always going to be difficult without firm proof one way or the other. ‘Twas ever thus, was it not?

I take the view that the conviction rates are so low at the moment, and the weight of society’s prejudice is so ingrained that if the balance was swung in the opposite direction then maybe the ends do justify the means?

It begs the question which would you rather: the huge majority of rapists/abusers continuing their behaviour (and if survey results are anything to go by, there’s an awful lot of them) and the associated impacts. Or a few (lots?) innocent men locked up for crimes they didn’t commit. Hobson’s Choice.

At the moment thought the system isn’t working, and the closer we strive towards male/female equality the more in stark relief the failure of the Law to get to grips with this problem will be.

Apologies for all the question marks…

Given the conviction rate is 56.9 % it seems incredibly unlikely your assessment is correct
Shall we discuss your scenario when it actually occurs?

That’s a fair point too.

I’m also kind of conscious that the reporting rate is so low, the charging rate is low and the number of offences that actually gets to court is so low that the conviction rate compared with what is actually going on is the tip of a very big iceberg. We’re arguing over a tiny percentage of the problem, depressing really.

Yes! Constructive conversation, although I’ll admit than some of my first posts really weren’t. I’ll answer in a bit Peyote.

New data today shows that the conviction rate for DV perpetrated by women against men has trippled in the last 10 years.

Refuge’s own data from 2000/2001 showed that the split was about 80/20 in terms of DV committed by men and women respectively. If the numbers being convicted in the courts have trebled in the last few years, then depending on the total increase in all convictions for DV you could see that ratio looking more like 70/30 or even 60/40.

At this point, everyone really should stop encoding the discussion of DV as being implicitly something that men do to women.

Don’t know where you’re getting your numbers from – latest numbers from 2015:

In 2015, 92,779 people were convicted of domestic abuse in England and Wales, thereby suggesting that 87,138 or 93.9 per cent of convicted abusers are male, while 6.1 per cent of convicted abusers are female.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/domestic-violence-women-statistics-number-trebles-female-violence-against-partners-a7316481.html

So it’s nowhere remotely near 70/30 or 60/40, it’s 94/6.

I was getting it from the charity ‘Refuge’, which stated that the split based on numbers from 2000/2001 were 80/20.