A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[daboarder]

well the world is not a perfect place, there are no simple solutions.

words to live by

[Wildeybeast]

"Worse still there has been no popular outcry" well I am telling you it is not acceptable, so there you are

If only the rest of society were like you Kirsten, the world be a very happy place indeed. On the balance of things, I think I agree with you that it isn't acceptable, but current events have compelled me to feel like I should stand up for his rights (he doesn't deserve any, but that isn't for us to decide) and those of the clubs who may wish to employ. I want to emphasise that I don't for one second stand up for Evans as an individual, nor forget about the grossly violated rights of his victim. It is an unfortunate downside of defending the basic liberties we enjoy that we inadvertently defend the likes of Evans.

[Kirsten]

I certainly entirely agree that there should be no threats, and people demanding that somebody not do a specific job is definitely a slippery slope. the problem is, given levels of violence against women and so on, I think in this instance keeping him away from a high profile, role model career is the lesser of two evils. it is not an ideal solution, but then, I cannot think of an ideal solution. all we can do is do what we can as each situation arises.

[Wildeybeast]

Obviously there are exceptions as Wildey pointed out, such as having sex offenders working with children. I just think if we stop someone returning to previous work on "principle" of what that job entailed where do you stop.
I think what it boils down to is what gets the public enraged so much about Evans is if he were to return to football, he would return to a well paid job and as such be able to return to a privileged lifestyle. Does not really look like he's been punished enough. It's a tough one.

Spot on. But we can't let popular opinion decide people's punishments. Well, we can and in fact should, but only through the proper democratic channels.

[Deadlift]

well the world is not a perfect place, there are no simple solutions.

Nope, personally if I were responsible for making the law of the land, he would still be inside. Sentencing is far too lenient IMO.

[Wildeybeast]

I certainly entirely agree that there should be no threats, and people demanding that somebody not do a specific job is definitely a slippery slope. the problem is, given levels of violence against women and so on, I think in this instance keeping him away from a high profile, role model career is the lesser of two evils. it is not an ideal solution, but then, I cannot think of an ideal solution. all we can do is do what we can as each situation arises.

Sacrifice one individual to make an example for the betterment of all society, especially the mistreated parts? Sorry, but that isn't something I can agree with on point of principle. I'm one of those 'better a thousand guilty people go free than one innocent suffers' kind of people. For a conservative (small C) I have oddly staunch views of liberty, justice and democracy.

[Wolfshade]

Unfortunately chemical castration only means that someone can't do it. It does not remove their urges and if a rapist then can't rape he can escalate and rape by proxy (with a foreign object) . If they wish to rehabilitate then there are a number of rapists who do volunterarily under go chemical castration.

The biggest issue is that the whole system is based on one where someone pays their price and comes out "slate free" or rehabilated. If permanent castration then you have two tiers of crime ones where there is a permanent price and another where you can pay your dues.

If a non-permanent approach is taken, then you end up on relying on the individual taking there drugs themselves, which has cost and compliance implications.

But, my biggest concern with it is that it might be used as a way to shirk responsibility, so rather than the person did something wrong, it was a medical issue that caused them to rape.

[daboarder]

Unfortunately chemical castration only means that someone can't do it. It does not remove their urges and if a rapist then can't rape he can escalate and rape by proxy (with a foreign object) . If they wish to rehabilitate then there are a number of rapists who do volunterarily under go chemical castration.

The biggest issue is that the whole system is based on one where someone pays their price and comes out "slate free" or rehabilated. If permanent castration then you have two tiers of crime ones where there is a permanent price and another where you can pay your dues.

If a non-permanent approach is taken, then you end up on relying on the individual taking there drugs themselves, which has cost and compliance implications.

But, my biggest concern with it is that it might be used as a way to shirk responsibility, so rather than the person did something wrong, it was a medical issue that caused them to rape.

actually, chemical castration usually works by severely suppressing the libido, in essence actually diminishing the "urges"

It is also, to a certain extent reversible. As to "serving a sentence" well I would just re-iterate that we accept that it is a reasonable sentence for a pedophile, therefore I can accept that its a reasonable sentence for a rapist as well. Yes it would continue far after a "prison term" but that would be the point.

And as to "shifting blame" I dont think so, we dont see that as a valid excuse for pedophilia, shouldn't be for rape either.

[Kirsten]

Sacrifice one individual to make an example for the betterment of all society, especially the mistreated parts? Sorry, but that isn't something I can agree with on point of principle. I'm one of those 'better a thousand guilty people go free than one innocent suffers' kind of people. For a conservative (small C) I have oddly staunch views of liberty, justice and democracy.

I know what you are saying, but I don't think that particular analogy works here personally. as I said, it is not a perfect solution, but I don't see a better one, and it isn't one innocent suffering. when the goal is bringing an end to sexual assault and the like, against men and women both, I think it is acceptable.

[Wildeybeast]

That is true, I used the phrase innocent very poorly here and you are right that there are no good solutions here. It's just the idea of us selecting Evans to make an example of on no basis greater than what the internets says does not sit well with me. I agree examples need to be made, but it should be out of everyone like him, through the proper processes. Of course, that would require the government to give a crap about promoting the feminist agenda, rather than simply offering meaningless soundbites on the matter that only serve to further stoke the media feeding frenzy whilst making them look like they have the pulse of the people in an election year.