Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (73810)	9/3/2003 10:47:05 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I think very few people realize there is a latent component- and the ones who do, and are worried about it, worried enough to make an issue of it...well...why exactly are they worried? They don't want to be thought of as latently homosexual? If they didn't consider homosexuality a "bad" thing, it wouldn't be "bad" to have a latent component of it. I remember a long time ago, if I argued for homosexaul rights, some people would invariably call me a lesbian. But why should I care? Lesbianism, imo, is no better or worse than being a heterosexual woman. So the only reason I might care, is if I thought it was bad to be that, in which case I'm proving the point of the person who thinks I'm really worried about homosexuality, and being associated with something like that. Then on the side of the phobia component- people who react with strong emotion to something usually have an underlying psychological issue with the inciting element. People react in very strong ways to homosexuality- far beyond what the "danger" from homosexuality might be. One of the definitions of phobias is fear of something out of proportion to its danger to you (an irrational fear of the danger of something)- if you use that as a definition then you can certainly support the phobia argument, since many people who speak up on SI posit all sorts of "dangers" posed by homosexuals which are clearly not very rational.

To: Lane3 who wrote (73810)	9/3/2003 12:01:20 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

COT Was discussing with a friend her attendance at a recent meeting of her chapter of NOW. Turns out they are extremely conflicted over the Kobe Bryant case, and I wondered whether this was typical of the feminist movement in general. The feminist "party line" is that no woman makes up an accusation of rape, that victims of rape are perpetually re-victimized by predominantly male law enforcement, media, and legal power structures, and that it is incumbent on the sisterhood to support and stand behind any rape victim willing to have the courage to come forward, particularly in the case of a high profile assailant. OTOH, in this case they have real doubts about the integrity of the alleged victim and whether she was really as innocent as one would have to be to go to a man's hotel room, engage at the least in heavy pre-intercourse sexual relations, and then think she could casually call it off and expect to get away with it. There is also a suspicion that she is primarily interested in using the springboard of a high profile accusation to seek a financial settlement. These two competing views are apparently causing a major conflict at least in our local chapter, as to whether, and if so how fervently, as an official chapter of NOW they should publicly should support the alleged victim. (Apparently one member made a motion that they should publicly endorse and support the prosecution decision to charge Bryant. After a long discussion the motion was tabled, and my friend doubts they will ever untable it because she thinks forcing it to a vote will destroy the chapter.) Their other conflict is with the equally strong feminist "party line" position that the victim should never be put on trial and that her previous sexual experiences, and even her life experiences which may allow juries to think that she somehow desereved to be raped by the way she had dressed, or acted, or such in the past, should be completely out of bounds. But in this case some of the women at the meeting were concerned about what appears to be as close to a "even if it was technically rape, she asked for it" situation as a defendant could want. It's fascinating to me to hear that even strong feminists could be prepared to make this argument. Most of the women there apparently like what they know of Bryant and think he's not getting a fair shake. Should they stick rigorously to the principle that the alleged victim's behavior can never be used as an attempt to justify the man's acts? Or should they admit that there may be times when a woman's prior acts are, indeed, relevant, and risk damaging the basic principle for other women in future who are the clear victims of traditional violent rapes but may be potentially vulnerable if their past lives and histories are permitted to be paraded before the jury? It was really fascinating to hear this woman talk about the way this case is so deeply dividing the local chapter. I wonder whether this is happening elsewhere.