Open Thread And Link Farm: Don’t Hurt The Ducks Edition

  1. The Pencilsword: On a plate – The Wireless Excellent cartoon by Aussie cartoonist Toby Morris, about how our birth (or, rather, who we’re born to) determines our life chances.
  2. Lawsplainer: What the Supreme Court Didn’t Decide About True Threats in Elonis | Popehat
  3. What would a reasonable religious freedom law look like? | Kelly Thinks Too Much
  4. I’ve been gently arguing with some Sad Puppies about Ms Marvel (the hugo-nominated superhero graphic novel about a Mulsim teen who gains superpowers) on TL Knighton’s blog.
  5. My daughter dressed like Elsa from “Frozen” for 23 days — and it was amazing – Salon.com
  6. The Columbia rape denialists are straight up conspiracy theorists And, a related link: I Am Not a ‘Pretty Little Liar’
  7. Sorry, evolutionary psychology buffs. A new paper suggests that our caveman ancestors were egalitarian. The title is an exaggeration, but there’s still stuff of interest here.
  8. Tim Minchin – If I Didn’t Have You – Full Uncut Version – YouTube I wish I were married to Sarah Minchin.
  9. The Bristol Board : Photo I love this Pogo strip from 1959. I pretty much love it anytime a great cartoonist plays with word balloons.
  10. My Cartoons At A May Day Festival In Israel!
  11. Against Being Against Manspreading The mostly feminist campaign against “manspreading” has led to fat-shaming and to giving police another excuse to harass minority men.
  12. “States with the highest number of abortion restrictions have the poorest health outcomes and least supportive policies for women and children….” | Center for Reproductive Rights
  13. Birth Control That Works Too Well | The Nation “A Colorado program to give low-income teens long-acting contraception dropped the teen abortion rate dramatically. But conservatives refuse to fund it.”
  14. Families don’t balance their budgets, and neither should the federal government – Vox
  15. Snowden and the NSA – The Atlantic
  16. All (hopefully) of the bad arguments about rape on Game of Thrones debunked, and Another major character is raped on Game of Thrones. This time, it works for the story., both written by Amanda Marcotte. I’m sort of late on posting this, because I only just watched it, but I agree with most of Amanda’s take.
  17. The forgotten history of how automakers invented the crime of “jaywalking” – Vox
  18. I will have fedoras and never apologise to anyone | anthropolatry From the title, I was expecting this post to be a defense of wearing fedoras – and yes, I realize that the hats people call fedoras are often actually trilbys – and a pushback against the practice of fashion-sneering at people who wear fedoras/trilbys, and I clicked on it for that reason, because I loath fashion-sneering. But it’s actually about something else – arguing that people on all sides should be willing to give other people a break when they say something terrible in an angry rant – but I thought that was interesting, too.
  19. Study: Each new immigrant creates 1.2 new jobs – Vox
  20. Paid Leave Goes from Progressive Pipe Dream to Political Reality | The New Republic
  21. Hook-up culture vs. rape culture: The conversation we’re not having
  22. 4 Reasons Why Feminism Is for Men — Medium

question-everythign

This entry posted in Link farms. Bookmark the permalink. 

127 Responses to Open Thread And Link Farm: Don’t Hurt The Ducks Edition

  1. 101
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Another Title 9 lawsuit, this time against Amherst. As always, the complaint is an interesting read.

  2. 102
    RonF says:

    Oh, Lord no, Amp. I don’t want Tamme to leave. But if he or she is looking for a place that will limit or eliminate debate or the expression of certain viewpoints based on one preferences or personal comfort level, this is not it. Over the years I’ve seen little sympathy for such a viewpoint. I’d much rather Tamme abandon that effort and stick around.

  3. 103
    ballgame says:

    That Amherst tribunal seems to have been a complete due process trainwreck, g&w. Unbelievable.

    Thanks for posting that.

  4. 104
    Patrick says:

    Wow. Here’s hoping that article is inaccurate

    I’ve come down pretty hard on affirmative consent because I think it’s, uh, evil. I think it treats worthwhile sexual activity as criminal and it’s proponents are engaged in moral panic.

    But even I can’t see how affirmative consent can be stretched to the point where you conclude that someone “withdrew consent” in the middle of oral sex *they were performing.* Surely the act of *performing oral sex* is affirmative consent to the sexual act of *performing oral sex.*

    Here’s hoping the actual theory of the case was the black out drunk thing. That’s still awful, but at least it’s awful in a way that has historical precedent instead of being new.

  5. 105
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Patrick says:
    June 10, 2015 at 2:04 pm
    Wow. Here’s hoping that article is inaccurate

    I don’t know if it’s “inaccurate,” but it is certainly based only on the complaint.

    Generally I tend to find that when a complaint states very clear easily-verifiable facts “the text was sent on July 1 and said ___,” those facts often end up turning out to be true. When it states clear facts and references affidavits or exhibits that is even more likely. But even there I remain aware that the facts at issue are often cherry-picked or at least highly selected, to make the complaint “stick.”

    In contrast, the analytical stuff in a complaint is always one sided, because it’s from a particular side, so that should be taken carefully. And the facts which can’t be verified are always more suspect.

    But even I can’t see how affirmative consent can be stretched to the point where you conclude that someone “withdrew consent” in the middle of oral sex *they were performing.* Surely the act of *performing oral sex* is affirmative consent to the sexual act of *performing oral sex.*

    Not to get too graphic, but not if you grab someone’s head. Voluntarily, sans grab, I agree with you.

    Here’s hoping the actual theory of the case was the black out drunk thing. That’s still awful, but at least it’s awful in a way that has historical precedent instead of being new.

    Well, to put this as a title 9 issue: imagine that a girl was in a blackout state, totally 100% shitfaced. She has to be helped back to her room by a guy and his friend. Her starts to perform oral sex on her, but at some point she grabs his hair. She gets charged with rape.

    That would be ridiculoussurprising. Right?

    But that is what seems to have happened here. It doesn’t mean that there was no rape, but it is surprising that the school was willing to accept a charge by the person who initiated the violation.

    Ignoring entirely the question of whether or not she perceived it as nonconsensual, the current Amherst policy states that “An individual who is incapacitated is not able to make rational, reasonable judgments and therefore is incapable of giving consent.” Everyone agrees he was shitfaced and blacked out, even the commission. How was he supposed to have consented in the first place?

  6. 106
    Tamen says:

    Everyone agrees he was shitfaced and blacked out, even the commission. How was he supposed to have consented in the first place?

    Doesn’t matter whether he consented in the first place or not. The reason being that male consent doesn’t matter and that it’s not women’s responsibility to obtain consent from their male partner. Yes, there are people who believe this and argue this:

    This paper by California Western Law Review’s Valerie Ryan cites Professor Alan Wertheimer:

    For Professor Wertheimer, it is acceptable for the man to
    bear a greater legal burden from intoxication so long as the imbalance is justified.. The justification for demanding that men assume the greater legal burden and be held responsible when there is an allegation of rape may be that, in almost all cases of rape, women are the victims and men are the perpetrators.

    This is similar to the sentiment as I once got from a commenter on Feministe under a post about a man being/feeling sexually abused by his partner: men do have a greater responsibility to obtain consent than women do due to history/patriarchy and the suppossedly “fact” that it is extremely rare that women rape men.

    Or even more relevant to this case, Sue Wasiolek the dean of Duke College who in a case testified that in cases where both parties are drunk:

    assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.

    Which at the core is basically a license to rape for drunk women as she has no responsibility to gain consent from her male partner – no matter how drunk he is.

    Or as Laura Dunn founder and executive director of the non-profit organization SurvJustice which advocates for sexual assault victims (apparently not all victims /s):

    People who are truly incapacitated can’t get erections.

    I…I can’t even.

    The quotes here were gathered from this Slate article by Amanda Hess.

  7. 107
    Ampersand says:

    Everyone agrees he was shitfaced and blacked out, even the commission. How was he supposed to have consented in the first place?

    The idea that if someone experiences a blackout – a memory loss – and can’t recall what happens, that means there’s no way s/he could have committed a rape, is ridiculous.

    As most English speakers know – but some people in this thread have seemingly forgotten – the term “blacked out” can refer to someone being unconscious, but also refers to when someone was conscious and active, but has no memory of what happened later. Here’s a definition from the NIH:

    Large quantities of alcohol, particularly if consumed rapidly, can produce a blackout, an interval of time for which the intoxicated person cannot recall key details of events, or even entire events. En bloc blackouts are stretches of time for which the person has no memory whatsoever.

    This is unquestionably what “blacked out” means in the context of this case, even according to the complaint. From John Doe’s complaint:

    The investigator found that John Doe’s account was consistent and credible insofar as he stated that he had experienced a total blackout and could recall nothing of his evening with Sandra Jones.

    Anyone suggesting that “blacked out” refers to Doe being unconscious or incapacitated during the oral sex either doesn’t understand the case, or is misrepresenting it.

    Speaking of which, KC Johnson (who you linked to) writes:

    [The panel] ruled that while Doe likely was “blacked out” during the oral sex, “[b]eing intoxicated or impaired by drugs or alcohol is never an excuse.”

    But KC is misrepresenting what the panel wrote, in order to falsely imply that the panel found that Doe was probably unconscious during the oral sex. Here’s what the panel actually wrote:

    Your account of being “blacked out” is credible. However, as stated in the Student Handbook: “Being intoxicated or impaired by drugs or alcohol is never an excuse for sexual misconduct and does not excuse one from the responsibility to obtain consent.”

    So the “during the oral sex” part was KC’s invention, not what the panel said. That’s an essential difference.

    Here’s something else the panel said:

    Ms. Jones’s account of withdrawing consent after it had initially been given – as evidenced by Ms. Jones saying “no” and “I don’t want to keep going” and by her asking you to leave and pushing you away – is credible and supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

    So what Jones has accused Doe of is of physically forcing his penis into her mouth – something that it is entirely possible for a rapist to do – despite her saying “no” over and over and trying to physically push Doe away.

    Either Jones is lying, or she’s telling the truth. If she’s telling the truth, then it was unquestionably rape. If she’s lying, then she’s a false accuser. Either way, something loathsome has happened. But it’s ridiculous to act as if that you can make that determination from reading the account of Doe’s lawyers. (Crossed out because that was unfair. My apologies.)

    Finally, the panel’s theory is not even remotely close to “at some point [he] grabs [her] hair,” which is what you claim they think Doe did. You’re soft-pedaling what Doe is accused of. Either you were incredibly careless in reading the panel’s decision, or you’re being dishonest.

  8. 108
    Ampersand says:

    Patrick:

    Here’s hoping the actual theory of the case was the black out drunk thing. That’s still awful, but at least it’s awful in a way that has historical precedent instead of being new.

    Here’s the panel’s “actual theory of the case”:

    Ms. Jones’s account of withdrawing consent after it had initially been given – as evidenced by Ms. Jones saying “no” and “I don’t want to keep going” and by her asking you to leave and pushing you away – is credible and supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

    That has absolutely nothing to do with “affirmative consent.” If Jones’ account is true – and I don’t claim to know if it is or not – but if it IS true, then that’s rape. Do you disagree with that?

  9. 109
    Ampersand says:

    Oh, Lord no, Amp. I don’t want Tamme to leave.

    Fair enough! I didn’t think you were saying that Tamme should leave; but I wanted to make sure Tamme understood that she’s completely welcome to post here, as far as the moderators are concerned.

  10. 110
    desipis says:

    Ampersand:

    As most English speakers know – but some people in this thread have seemingly forgotten – the term “blacked out” can refer to someone being unconscious, but also refers to when someone was conscious and active, but has no memory of what happened later.

    If someone has drunk enough to result in having no memory of the event the next day, then I think it’s more-likely-than-not that they were too intoxicated to consent to sex at the time. Thus, it would seem that based on the evidence that the committee has accepted, and Ms Jones’ testimony that she was (at least initially) a willing participant, that she wilfully engaged in sexual activity without Doe’s valid consent, and therefore is also guilty of sexual misconduct and ought to face the same consequences as Doe.

  11. 111
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Ampersand says:
    June 11, 2015 at 3:48 am
    The idea that if someone experiences a blackout – a memory loss – and can’t recall what happens, that means there’s no way s/he could have committed a rape, is ridiculous.

    Yes. Which is why I did not, and would not, say that.

    What I did say is that someone in a blackout state–which is to say, drunk enough to blackout later–does not appear capable of consenting under Amherst’s own laws.

    The guy was shitfaced. Apparently more shitfaced than her. In fact, he was shitfaced enough that he literally could not remember what happened the night before, and that does not seem to be a point of disagreement. She was, as far as I can understand, less drunk than he-certainly she did not drink to the point of losing memory, as is obvious.

    Under what I understand to be amherst’s own sexual assault policies, his level of intoxication would imply “no consent.” This reading is also in line with a lot of modern feminist claims regarding consent. Moreover, this is a situation in which it appears she was less drunk than he was–which, under almost all feminist readings, would put the onus on her to avoid any sexual interaction.

    In other words, if they found that she initiated the contact, or initiated the sex, it isn’t clear why she would not be charged. And it isn’t clear why they would not consider him a victim.

    And actually, this is one of the most justifiable uses of this statute. Because while it is certainly true that we don’t excuse someone from going out and initiating sex merely because they’re drunk, we might also recognize that drunk people are more likely to do stupid shit, which is a decent reason not to start having sex with them.

    After all, the mid-act withdrawal and reversal of consent is one of the more difficult things to deal with. If there was ever a time when I would NOT expect my sex partner to properly respond to my instructions, jump up, and stop in the middle of an enjoyable act, “when they are reeeeaaaaaaly drunk” would be that time.

  12. 112
    Patrick says:

    Ampersand- Assuming that the unstated portion is that after she did this he forced her to start/continue giving him oral sex, yes, that would constitute rape.

  13. 113
    Ampersand says:

    What I did say is that someone in a blackout state–which is to say, drunk enough to blackout later–does not appear capable of consenting under Amherst’s own laws.

    What “laws” are those, specifically? Provide a link and a quote, please.

    According to the panel:

    However, as stated in the Student Handbook: “Being intoxicated or impaired by drugs or alcohol is never an excuse for sexual misconduct and does not excuse one from the responsibility to obtain consent.”

    So it seems that the student handbook disagrees with you.

    As I’ve said before (and will doubtless say again), any rule that says that no drunk person can ever consent to having sex is wrong, and incoherent, and unrealistic. I realize that some feminists disagree with me; I think those feminists are mistaken. (I do think it’s possible to meaningfully see a difference between being merely “drunk” and being “incapacitated,” however.)

    She was, as far as I can understand, less drunk than he-certainly she did not drink to the point of losing memory, as is obvious.

    Nonsense. It’s entirely possible for Charlie Brown to be as drunk or drunker than Linus, and for Linus to nonetheless be the only one to have a blackout. Just as it’s possible for Charlie Brown to be drunker but for Linus to be the one who throws up. Different people respond differently to drunkenness, and the conclusion you’re drawing is entirely unwarrented. You have absolutely no idea which one was drunker, and neither do I.

    But it doesn’t matter to me. If they both consented to the sex, then it wasn’t rape, in my view, even if they were both drunk. And if her account of Doe’s acts is true, then it was rape, regardless of how drunk Doe was. It’s that simple, imo.

  14. 114
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    Ampersand says:
    June 11, 2015 at 6:15 am
    What I did say is that someone in a blackout state–which is to say, drunk enough to blackout later–does not appear capable of consenting under Amherst’s own laws.

    What “laws” are those, specifically? Provide a link and a quote, please.

    Same place you just cited, but without as much cherry picking. As you should know, since you just presumably read them.
    Here’s the whole section:

    Consent is not effective if it results from the use or threat of physical force, intimidation, or coercion, or any other factor that would eliminate an individual’s ability to exercise his or her own free will to choose whether or not to have sexual contact. Coercion includes the use of pressure and/or oppressive behavior, including express or implied threats of harm, severe and/or pervasive emotional intimidation, which places an individual in fear of immediate or future harm or physical injury or causes a person to engage in unwelcome sexual activity. A person’s words or conduct amount to coercion if they wrongfully impair the other’s freedom of will and ability to choose whether or not to engage in sexual activity.

    An individual who is incapacitated is not able to make rational, reasonable judgments and therefore is incapable of giving consent. Incapacitation is the inability, temporarily or permanently, to give consent, because the individual is mentally and/or physically helpless due to drug or alcohol consumption, either voluntarily or involuntarily, or the individual is unconscious, asleep or otherwise unaware that the sexual activity is occurring. In addition, an individual is incapacitated if he/she/they demonstrate that they are unaware of where they are, how they got there, or why or how they became engaged in a sexual interaction. Where alcohol is involved, incapacitation is a state beyond drunkenness or intoxication. Some indicators of incapacitation may include, but are not limited to, lack of control over physical movements, lack of awareness of circumstances or surroundings, or the inability to communicate for any reason. An individual may experience a blackout state in which he/she/they appear to be giving consent, but do not actually have conscious awareness or the ability to consent. It is especially important, therefore, that anyone engaging in sexual activity be aware of the other person’s level of intoxication. The relevant standard that will be applied is whether the Respondent knew, or a sober reasonable person in the same position should have known, that the other party was incapacitated and therefore could not consent to the sexual activity.

    The College considers sexual contact while under the influence of alcohol to be risky behavior. Alcohol impairs a person’s decision-making capacity, awareness of the consequences, and ability to make informed judgments. Being intoxicated or impaired by drugs or alcohol is never an excuse for sexual misconduct and does not excuse one from the responsibility to obtain consent.

    IMO, the proper reading of that section is that
    1) If someone is so drunk as to be in what is commonly referred to as a “blackout state,” which appears to meet their definition of incapacitated, and if
    2) A “sober reasonable person in the same position should have known, that the other party was incapacitated;” and
    3) there was sexual contact; then
    4) It was rape.

    The only reasonable reading would be that if one person was much less drunk, they bear the burden. As with most such policies it is very difficult to interpret if both parties are equally drunk and therefore equally unable to consent.

    As I’ve said before (and will doubtless say again), any rule that says that no drunk person can ever consent to having sex is wrong, and incoherent, and unrealistic. I realize that some feminists disagree with me; I think those feminists are mistaken. (I do think it’s possible to meaningfully see a difference between being merely “drunk” and being “incapacitated,” however.)

    Sure.

    She was, as far as I can understand, less drunk than he-certainly she did not drink to the point of losing memory, as is obvious.

    Nonsense. It’s entirely possible for Charlie Brown to be as drunk or drunker than Linus, and for Linus to nonetheless be the only one to have a blackout. Just as it’s possible for Charlie Brown to be drunker but for Linus to be the one who throws up. Different people respond differently to drunkenness, and the conclusion you’re drawing is entirely unwarrented. You have absolutely no idea which one was drunker, and neither do I.

    That’s not true at all. I don’t have a firm conclusion, but the existing evidence suggests that she was doing things like sending chatty texts and engaging flirtatiously with other parties and such and, apparently, remembering the night in detail. He was, apparently, drunk enough not to remember a thing. Generally speaking, that evidence suggests that all things being equal she was less drunk than he was.

    Could it be otherwise? Sure; we don’t have all the facts to determine that conclusively. It wouldn’t pass “beyond a reasonable doubt” standards, for sure. But since we’re in preponderance land, with wide evidentiary standards,” it would be pretty strange to start discarding this because it’s not supported perfectly.

    After all, you know what ELSE is also supported by only one party, without any physical proof? The whole “something happened after she withdrew consent” claim. You may note that I’m not disputing that, which matches my overall approach. You may also note that you’re not disputing it either, which does not match the “we don’t have facts” approach that you use above.

    But it doesn’t matter to me. If they both consented to the sex, then it wasn’t rape, in my view, even if they were both drunk. And if her account of Doe’s acts is true, then it was rape, regardless of how drunk Doe was. It’s that simple, imo.

    Well, OK. If you don’t care about it or think it matters, there probably isn’t much point in debating it with you further. I don’t find it so easy to reduce extraordinarily complex situations to simplicity.

  15. 115
    Ampersand says:

    G&W: Please check your email. Thanks!

  16. 116
    closetpuritan says:

    Well, a large portion of the internet continues to think that the response, any time they’re mad at someone, is to try to get them fired.

  17. 117
    desipis says:

    Oh look, another women becomes the target of a harassment campaign because she dared express an opinion.

  18. 118
    closetpuritan says:

    Another attempt at censoring Fun Home on college campuses–along with three other graphic novels–because it’s “pornographic”.

  19. 119
    Ampersand says:

    Closetpuritan – That’s just sort of, well, sad? It’s not even a credible threat of censorship; it’s a student losing her temper in a particularly unproductive way.

    Honestly, my biggest reaction was wondering why a professor would assign a volume of “Y, The Last Man” in a college course. There are so many better graphic novels with more depth; plus, it’s not like students will be able to get an adequate reading of “Y” from just one volume.

  20. 120
    closetpuritan says:

    I’ve heard that Y is overrated, but haven’t read any of it myself.

    Yeah, the threat doesn’t seem especially credible. One of my relatives was saying that she probably was just hoping for an easy course of reading Batman and Ritchie Rich comics.

    One thing that jumped out at me was her father saying “if they (had) put a disclaimer on this, we wouldn’t have taken the course.” (emphasis mine) I have a suspicion that the student’s not even the primary instigator of this, or at least it wouldn’t have gotten this far without heavy parental support.

  21. 121
    Ampersand says:

    I’ve heard that Y is overrated, but haven’t read any of it myself.

    I liked “Y.” It was a fun, silly, action-adventure comic. But yes, it’s definitely overrated.

    From a feminist perspective, there were a few things I found annoying about “Y”; the idea that civilization will immediately collapse without men (because apparently there are no women engineers, electricians, pilots, etc., and furthermore no women capable of learning to do these things); the use of a “male gaze” approach to designing and drawing characters; and the depiction of the very few characters who were identifiably feminists as irrational homicidal killers.

  22. 122
    RonF says:

    Being intoxicated or impaired by drugs or alcohol is never an excuse for sexual misconduct and does not excuse one from the responsibility to obtain consent.

    And yet it seems to excuse one from the responsibility of being accountable for having given it.

    Mind you, I don’t disagree with the quoted statement. Not at all. But this:

    The relevant standard that will be applied is whether the Respondent knew, or a sober reasonable person in the same position should have known, that the other party was incapacitated and therefore could not consent to the sexual activity.

    Means in practice that if two people, both drunk to the point of incapacity, engage in sex and one of them later comes to regret it, the person who first proposed the act can be found a rapist but the person who agreed to the proposition has no responsibility. One person is held to the standard of exercising a sober person’s judgement regardless of whether or not they were sober, whereas the other is not. I think that’s absurd.

    As expressed in these sexual conduct codes, there seems to be two kinds of classifications of a sex act: 1) sex that all participants are and stay happy with after the fact, and 2) rape. The concept that you may have done something that you agreed to at the time but understand to have been poor judgment now but that was NOT rape does not seem to have much space in these codes, especially as they are actually being enforced. “You did something stupid with someone, but you are as responsible as the other person and will just have to live with the consequences” seems to be a foreign concept. That, again, is ridiculous, and seems to be at odds with human nature.

  23. 123
    RonF says:

    A cartoon that proposes an idea I’ve promoted numerous times – The Some Asshole Initiative.

    That link will only work today, after that I’ll have to repost with the archival URL.

  24. 124
    Jake Squid says:

    So I got this email at work today:

    I tried to contact your company by emailing to the contact us.
    I got a reply telling me to suck.
    I have googled your email address.
    I am attaching you the email exchange that happened and the swearing.
    Please let me know what to do.

    My reply:

    Dear Mr. X,

    I must apologize to you. We meant to tell you to go fuck yourself. I’m terribly embarrassed by the typo.

    With all due respect,
    Jake Squid

  25. 125
    Ampersand says:

    Jake –

    I’m guessing the original contact was an unsolicited sales pitch?

  26. 126
    Jake Squid says:

    I’m guessing the original contact was an unsolicited sales pitch?

    Virus attachment. Which is pretty much the same thing at this point…

  27. 127
    Jake Squid says:

    Question for our mental health professionals!

    Is “Pollyannaish” a valid finding or diagnosis? And is it a positive or negative trait?

    What would a person who is narcissistic & pollyannaish be like? Is that, “Everything is gonna be great! For meeeeeeee!”