Thursday, 8 January 2015

Susan Dwyer, and why we must learn to stop worrying and love the Sisterhood.

The destruction of the presumption of innocence, a 1500 year old principle, is, in this Feminist's opinion,

"a welcome innovation"



"Despite the criticisms, a “yes means yes” policy is a welcome innovation in tackling sexual misconduct of all kinds"

ALL kinds? Great! So it will stop false rape accusations? Boy. That is one neat trick.

How, exactly, will it manage that?



" it targets the stereotypical attitudes about gender that lead to problematic sexual behavior"

 That women, like men, are able to articulate their opinions? Yes, I can see that would be very problematic, if you view women as frightened children.

 " if the new standard changes the conversation about sexual assault"

 Well, yes, it will now change it to "please do not charge me with sexual assault just out of a whim, which you can now do with impunity"

 "Consent creates a kind of moral magic"

 Strangly enough, law courts disagree with you. In every other arena, if you agree to something, then you agree to it. No magic there, sorry. Maybe... maybe I'm wrong! And Judge Judy is really a witch! Aieeee!

 But, yes, I can see YOU might find the notion of consent incomprehensible.

 "Some critics say that it is unclear what will count as affirmative consent"

 Yes. Because they asked the people enforcing it "what will count as affirmative consent". Still waiting on the answer, btw. Any day now. Any day.

 "the new standard does not require a signed contract between students before sexual activity may occur"

 Is that your legal opinion? Because the lawyers who've examined this say they have no idea how someone can establish consent. If they don't know, how come you do?

 Oh right. Magic. Sorry I asked.


 "After all, it is the rare individual who can specify in advance of a particular sexual episode what actions she consents to. "

 Nice of you to point out it's only females who can't do this, but I'm afraid you need to refine it further. It's feminists who are incapble. The rest of us manage just fine.

 "Could you say beforehand whether you will not consent to having your wrists firmly held above your head during intercourse?"

 Yes. Is that really difficult? Oh right, I'm talking to someone who thinks consent is witchcraft.

 "What it does require is conversation"

 In the middle of sex. To put it bluntly, instead of fucking like animals, you will now have to chatter continuously - and since you cannot prove someoen verbally consented, unless you record the event (which may itself be a crime), then your partner can renege after the event. As has been frequently pointed out, as you no doubt know about and just don't care.

 "sex may not typically be considered a chatty activity, but in truth, it’s only cultural assumptions that make us feel awkward asking our partners whether a certain activity is OK with them."

 Oh right, all those scientists who say otherwise, jeez, what idiots they must be. They should stop doing science and do more gender studies, like you.

 "On reflection, it should strike us as odd that we are supposed to know what our partners want "

 If only there was some sort of communication which was non-verbal... gosh... if only some bright spark could have invented that millions and millions of years ago.

 " One cannot presume, without considerable discussion, what a new partner might or might not enjoy. "

 Which is why I have to aks each partner if they would like to have their nails removed with pliers.

 "in such relationships affirmative consent may not be required in any definitive form"

 Except it's been pointed out no exceptions exist in the legislation, so thank you for giving legal advice WHEN YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED. YOU TURNIP.

 " one element of consent is always in play: It can be revoked at any time"

 Such as the second before a man ejaculates. Oh dear! He should have held it back! No doubt the next decade he spends behind bars being raped and beaten will teach him better control.

 "Although the change in policy is positive"

 in your opinion, which you are stating as fact.

 "Its adoption will not eliminate sexual assault on campus. "

 Finally got something right!


 "specialized victim support"

 For everyone? Or just women? It's just women, isn't it?

 "confidentiality and reporting protocols."

 Because the ability to face your accuser is so passe! If Jane Demoray wants to destroy Brent Smith, why, she can just say he done the deed, and be Believed. That's what your propaganda says we should do with 'survivors'. "Believe". Don't think!! Believe.

 " its adoption will, over time, change the perspective from which students and administrators view sexual misconduct"

 Yes. Student males will know that any sexual contact with a female can arbitrarily result in their destruction. Administrators will know that 1500 years of legal principle has been erased. Without any ballot on the matter, no referendum...Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Just. Gone.

 " only a morally repulsive assumption about women’s psychology would lead us to think that the policy increases the mendacity of those who report sexual assault."

 Ah. Ad hominem. How refreshing. It's been minutes since of your mob launched one at me. Did you want to tell me I have a stinky bottom too?


 " The change shifts the burden of proof from the accuser, who had to show that she resisted, to the accused, who must now show that he sought and received her consent"

 As I said. No more presumption of innocence. And no legal way is outlined to prove innocence. If accused, guilty. I'm surprised you bother with trials. Will you televise them? Will you make them confess, weeping, of their crimes against The Party?


 "The sexual abuse of women has a long and complex history"

 Oh, and here I was thinking feminism was about equality. EGALITARIANS WOULD HAVE SAID IT WAS EVERYONE'S SEXUAL ABUSE THAT MATTERED.

 " arguably, the causes of sexual assault on campus and the situations in which it occurs differ from those in wider society"

 I can argue the moon is a giant turnip, it doesn't make it true. YOU HAVE ADVANCED NO EVIDENCE. YOU MERELY WEASEL-WORD YOUR WAY THROUGH LIFE.

 "Susan Dwyer is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland."

 I weep for the University of Maryland.

 "she specializes in areas at the intersection of moral philosophy"

 Yet seems devoid of any herself.


" constitutional law"

What? i don't see a law degree here. http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/people/dwyer#tabs-1

Was it bought over the internet? Hope you kept the receipt!

" feminist theory"

didn't see that coming. Really, what more do you need to say?






























No comments:

Post a Comment

Please try to avoid logical fallacies!