![Reply](STYLES/Planetarion2/buttons/reply.gif) |
25 Jun 2007, 16:09
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,094
|
Rape sentence too 'lenient'
i'm not really sure if the anger is over the sentence or the reasoning, and i have to confess i don't have any idea about what actually happened.
But for the sake of argument if the man involved genuinely thought that the girl concerned was 16 surely that has to be taken into account when sentencing? I'm not sure if this is the correct usage of the term (ill defer to the lawyers present), but those who are most outraged seem to be advocating a strict liability for these kinds of offences where the actual circumstances are irrelevant.
If the rape was a 'statutary rape' ie she 'consented' but was below the age of consent, and the man thought she was of legal age and had consented - why shouldn't that result in a lesser sentence?? surely the culpability is reduced??
|
|
|
25 Jun 2007, 16:16
|
#2
|
mmm lambs
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,906
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6237480.stm]
If the rape was a 'statutary rape' ie she 'consented' but was below the age of consent, and the man thought she was of legal age and had consented - why shouldn't that result in a lesser sentence?? surely the culpability is reduced??
|
From the article it seems that she didn't consent anyway. In which case the punishments do seem a bit light.
If she had consented though then I agree, it should definitely be taken into account.
__________________
I drink therefore I am
|
|
|
25 Jun 2007, 16:22
|
#3
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Pics plz
Seriously though she looked sixteen aged ten? I mean what?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
25 Jun 2007, 16:24
|
#4
|
Not Dark or Handsome
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cwmbru
Posts: 2,588
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by midge5
From the article it seems that she didn't consent anyway. In which case the punishments do seem a bit light.
|
I'd have to disagree. The article, to me, seems to indicate there was no question of consent, or why would the judge have to take into consideration that the girl looked 16?
But yeah, if 10 year old girls are looking like they're 16 these days, the legal age should be higher.
__________________
"You can't drink a pint of Bovril."
|
|
|
25 Jun 2007, 16:28
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,094
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by midge5
From the article it seems that she didn't consent anyway. In which case the punishments do seem a bit light.
|
its a bit crappy as im not really sure either way, the report doesn't mention abduction so i assume there was a degree of compliance, and one of the men was jailed for nine months for 'inciting a sexual act' ...which could mean anything but assuming theres no coprophilia involved probably means asking for a blowjob.
If she was abdcuted and forcibly raped obviously i think the sentence is too lenient.
|
|
|
25 Jun 2007, 16:32
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,094
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apothos
But yeah, if 10 year old girls are looking like they're 16 these days, the legal age should be higher.
|
Why? If anything it shows that each case should be based on its own consideration rather than the utterly ridiculous notion that the state can universally determine an age of consent for everyone. You're not saying the 16 year olds are unable to consent, but that they look like 10 year olds who possibly could consent - so lets raise the age for everyone.
|
|
|
25 Jun 2007, 17:08
|
#7
|
mmm lambs
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,906
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apothos
I'd have to disagree. The article, to me, seems to indicate there was no question of consent, or why would the judge have to take into consideration that the girl looked 16?
But yeah, if 10 year old girls are looking like they're 16 these days, the legal age should be higher.
|
Maybe he felt that raping a child was worse than raping someone of consentual age, not really sure as I was a bit confused by that. I was just going by the fact it said
"Oxford Crown Court heard that Fenn removed her clothes and raped her, while an accomplice, Darren Wright, 34, took her home and sexually assaulted her."
which I suppose could just be statutory rape.
__________________
I drink therefore I am
|
|
|
25 Jun 2007, 18:39
|
#8
|
Not Dark or Handsome
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cwmbru
Posts: 2,588
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
You're not saying the 16 year olds are unable to consent, but that they look like 10 year olds who possibly could consent - so lets raise the age for everyone.
|
If it makes people think twice about trying it on with a young girl in the park, then that's fine by me.
__________________
"You can't drink a pint of Bovril."
|
|
|
25 Jun 2007, 18:42
|
#9
|
Not Dark or Handsome
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cwmbru
Posts: 2,588
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by midge5
Maybe he felt that raping a child was worse than raping someone of consentual age, not really sure as I was a bit confused by that. I was just going by the fact it said
"Oxford Crown Court heard that Fenn removed her clothes and raped her, while an accomplice, Darren Wright, 34, took her home and sexually assaulted her."
which I suppose could just be statutory rape.
|
The part i was referring to was:
"Judge Hall said in sentencing he faced a moral dilemma as the fact they had sex within 45 minutes of meeting was an absolute crime.
But he said the girl had dressed provocatively and looked as though she was 16."
It looks like the origianl article was updated, and it was indeed statutory rape.
__________________
"You can't drink a pint of Bovril."
|
|
|
25 Jun 2007, 18:59
|
#10
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apothos
If it makes people think twice about trying it on with a young girl in the park, then that's fine by me.
|
Let's issue one young girl in five with a loaded shotgun. That'll certainly make people think twice about trying it on with them.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
25 Jun 2007, 19:50
|
#11
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Let's issue one young girl in five with a loaded shotgun. That'll certainly make people think twice about trying it on with them.
|
and give the ones who look older a license to kill
__________________
hi
|
|
|
25 Jun 2007, 20:30
|
#12
|
The PropaGhandi
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 796
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Its better with 2 @ 16 then one @ 32!
__________________
Free imagehosting: Link
Free scans: #transcendancy
<Deffeh> I just told my parents im a homosexual, now they kicked me out
|
|
|
25 Jun 2007, 23:43
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Using 'rape' to describe statutory rape is bullshit and you should edit your original post to make it less retarded.
Also the sentence makes no sense and seems like a half-hearted compromise based on no principles at all. Either he was justified in believing she was 16 and should have been acquitted, or he wasnt and should have got the standard sentence for that sort of thing (which admittedly shouldnt be any more than 2 years at absolute maximum but consistency is needed).
|
|
|
27 Jun 2007, 13:56
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,094
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Using 'rape' to describe statutory rape is bullshit and you should edit your original post to make it less retarded.
|
I didn't know enough at the time and went with what the news organisations said, but from reading later reports its was 'statutory rape'.
That said and asking yahwe/furball/proteus et al is there such a crime as 'statutory rape'? This case seems to indicate theres no defence against someone deceiving you.
|
|
|
27 Jun 2007, 14:09
|
#15
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
This case seems to indicate theres no defence against someone deceiving you.
|
I guess it's more a cultural question than a question about "statutory" rapes. At least that's how it is in Finland. In court, whenever it comes to gender-against-another case (parenthoods on divorces, rapes, home violence), it's often the male counterpart that gets neglected and judged on his gender. It's, by default, assumed that the woman is somewhat holy and more correct on anything that comes atop these questions. Males are seen as sexual predators or violent nutcases.
A few instances spring into mind. The secretary of the Finnish coalition party was accused by his ex-wife of rape, muggery, pimping, and threatening. In the end, he only received a sentence for illegal threat (which was something among the lines of "Get off my face or I'll punch you"), something anyone will say when annoyed. Because of the accusations, he lost his job as the secretary, his run for government suffered (although he got elected to the parliament, but it's debateable whether he got ripped off a minister position because of the bad publicity), and it's estimated that the woman made a good pay of 15k€ through selling her story to the tabloids.
Second of all, a former co-worker of mine lost his child's custody battle because his alcoholic (proven) wife accused him of being a drug addict (unproven, no criminal record, not even credit issues or unpaid bills) because the court found an unemployed alcoholist mother more suitable a parent than an accusedly drug addict man with a decent job. Of course, this is because the court decided to believe the accusations. Again in the courtesy of this man, a friend of his had gotten slapped with a frying pan in the face by his wife. It looked quite crude, his face, that is. Both sides agreed that after the slap with the pan the man grabbed the woman's arm, twisted the pan off, threw it out of the window (cliché), and pushed the woman against the sofa. The man got accused and was found quilty of mugging her wife (who only had some bruices in the arm, on contrary to broken jaw).
As long as the concensus of the society is to build a matriarchal order, there's not going to be a change in this subject; actually, didn't they just issue a legistlative initiative in the Uk that protects druken women - ie. if you're drunk while having sex with a man, you can come back and claim it was a rape even if you yourself agreed, or even initiated it. Some bloke said that from then on men would have to bring cameras or legal forms with them so that to prove the woman was fully intentional when agreeing to having sex with the man. Of course, this wouldn't work the other way around, so it excuse you Uk blokes to be able to claim rape after having had drunken sex with the 250-pounder.
|
|
|
27 Jun 2007, 17:18
|
#16
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Seriously though she looked sixteen aged ten? I mean what?
|
That was my first thought.
The main thing I find slightly worrying about this report (and it's probably just selective coverage by the Beeb, rather than anything the judge has/hasn't said) is the emphasis put on looks rather than the psychological maturity they may or may not display. I presume in this case the girl was also very mature in her behaviour (beyond just "dressing provocatively which has nothing to do with anything) not just her appearance.
Having said that, my first reaction was upon seeing this story was to lol since only last week someone was given two years for being a small scale drug dealer (mainly to feed their own habit, or so the coverage said).
Only vaguely related to law and order, but I came across, this forum which amused me no end (in particular the attitudes expressed in that thread).
|
|
|
27 Jun 2007, 17:34
|
#17
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Was the girl a virgin beforehand?
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
|
|
|
27 Jun 2007, 17:40
|
#18
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
As long as the concensus of the society is to build a matriarchal order
|
I hear this quite a bit, but we must be building the worst matriarchy ever encountered.
To take a few examples (I am using my own country as an example, I appreciate things may be different elsewhere, and these figures are from 2003-2005 so perhaps are a little out of date) :
Males make up a little under half the population but
- 80% of MPs
- 70% of Local Councillors
- 83% of House of Lords
- 91% of Directors of FTSE100 companies
- 93% of Senior Police Officers
- 87% of Local Authority Chief Executives
- 75% of Senior Civil Servants
- 88% of University Vice Chanellors
- 90% of Editors of national newspapers
- 90% of Chief Executives of Media Companies in FTSE350
- 90% of High Court and Above Judges
etc...
I've read recently that the number of paper millionaires is a lot more equal due to inheritance, divorce and house price craziness, but the last Times Rich List had just 91 women in the top 1000 richest Britons.
If we're heading towards matriarchy then it's taking it's time.
|
|
|
27 Jun 2007, 18:38
|
#19
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
I hear this quite a bit, but we must be building the worst matriarchy ever encountered.
|
Funny, you're behind. Or Finnish females are way better at it.
Talking about universities.
66% of people accepted to universities are female.
Talking about the parliament.
60% of the ministers are female.
It's really a different development here, but it could be Scandinavian. In Norway, there's already a law that requires at least 40% PLC Board to be female, and they're trying to hammer it through here too.
At 2004, out of the 32 people working at different official posts regarding equality (the minister at the social & health, the department there, the parliament board for those issues), three were male and twenty-nine were female.
|
|
|
27 Jun 2007, 20:32
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
As long as the concensus of the society is to build a matriarchal order, there's not going to be a change in this subject; actually, didn't they just issue a legistlative initiative in the Uk that protects druken women - ie. if you're drunk while having sex with a man, you can come back and claim it was a rape even if you yourself agreed, or even initiated it. Some bloke said that from then on men would have to bring cameras or legal forms with them so that to prove the woman was fully intentional when agreeing to having sex with the man. Of course, this wouldn't work the other way around, so it excuse you Uk blokes to be able to claim rape after having had drunken sex with the 250-pounder.
|
These sort of laws are based on the cultural stereotype of women being easily-led innocent pixies who cant be held responsible for their own actions, which is just the latest incarnation of a myth which has been around for centuries (and propagated largely by men). Talking about a 'matriarchal order' misses the deeper point somewhat.
|
|
|
29 Jun 2007, 00:39
|
#21
|
Miles Teg
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dom City
Posts: 5,192
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
These sort of laws are based on the cultural stereotype of women being easily-led innocent pixies who cant be held responsible for their own actions, which is just the latest incarnation of a myth which has been around for centuries (and propagated largely by men). Talking about a 'matriarchal order' misses the deeper point somewhat.
|
Ross is right.
__________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
29 Jun 2007, 07:51
|
#22
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
I'm not sure about the UK, but the situation might be a little different in Finland. While I agree with this part:
Quote:
These sort of laws are based on the cultural stereotype of women being easily-led innocent pixies who cant be held responsible for their own actions
|
Following the gender equality debate in Finland, you can't really say the women would be doing (granted, the equality debate in Finland is predominantly discussed by women - because men are seen "unfit" to take part into the discussion because of the touted patriarchal order of the society since the stoneage, which is also responsible for the myths) anything to change the issue. A bit ackward example would be that, women would prefer a totally equal society over gender differences: the Finnish Defence Forces have a habit of ranking people regarding their physical condition, and for women it's easier to achieve higher ranks (ie. 2700 at cooper's good, whilst it takes 3000 for men). What I am staggeringly after, is that, women aren't willing to give up on their advantages over men, but are keen on closing the gap from their point of view.
The debate is currently going into a direction where equality is the superficial goal. This is good.
What isn't good, is, that the debate doesn't involve men, and as by according to Minister Wallin, the debate really needs men - why - because currently the direction is in improving women's position, but neglecting the other side of the view.
There has never been an initiative in the house of parliament regarding the obligatory military service in Finland - why - because nobody wants to discuss that part of equality. Nobody wants to discuss the myth of men being brutal, sexual predators to whom a woman is a pixie to be kept in between the kitchen and the bed. These aren't points of interest. They are discussing wage improvements for female dominated areas, they are discussing gender requirements for PLCs, we're concerned on how women fit into the working life.
On the other hand, we have a dramatic difference for women in for example the universities, but nobody is concerned about that. On the other hand, men are forced to serve six to thirteen months in military or civil service (and I personally would have prefered spending those nine months, plus the leftovers, either working and thus earning money or studying), or alternatively spending six months in jail. Nobody is concerned about that. Men get continually caned in situations like rape allegations, domestic violence, and custody battles. In cases where it's word against word, the woman's word beats in 85% of the cases - for no other reason but gender. Women are known to make money on publicity drivels - the case with the secretary of the Finnish Coalition party isn't the only one, and probably leaves second to the Prime Minister Vanhanen's former date Susan Kuronen, who actually wrote a book about her relationship to Matti Vanhanen. The book included SMS messages, emails, along with details regarding their sex life, and she was on the middle page of a Finnish tabloid with the bold print "Matti is a boring lover". Now, if a man went and said "Well, her **** was loose like an elephant's, and she was like a trout in bed, which is why I prefered ****ing her in the ass" - Jesus that would spark the feminists.
According to a youth survey, women want a man that is rich, has a succesfull career, lots of friends, wants children, wants to take care of household chores and the children, and the list goes on.
This is the generic direction of the debate in Scandinavia. Nothing is being done to cleanse the myth, instead we're trapping requirements for different instances to force women to the boards, and to "force" equality on the female side of the gender.
The question is, will a woman ever suggest a 40% male requirement to universities? No. What would happen if a man did? He'd be labeled a chauv. The question is, will a woman suggest a 40% female requirement to the PLC boards? It was already done by former Minister Tuula Haapainen. The debate is grossly one-sided and only interest in equality in terms of what comes to improving (admittedly on several aspects) lacking position of women in the society.
This is why I am talking about building a matriarchal order. Should a man talk about equality, he'll be driven off with the claim that men are so much better off. In truth, that's just a poor excuse to not also discuss the parts of the society that neglect males.
|
|
|
29 Jun 2007, 07:55
|
#23
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Yes. And when someone brings the point that "because women are better at something", anyone can bring the point that "men are better at something", too. And throw in a vain claim that since a certain ministry appointed a chief of staff of a certain gender, it's taken a few years and now long-term respected staff members including heads of department are handing out their resignments with necessarily no new job at sight. It's an useless detail, but quite as useful as any when talking about "It should be so because a gender is better at it".
|
|
|
29 Jun 2007, 18:36
|
#24
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 33
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Statutory rape is called statutory rape not because it is rape in the common sense of sex without the consent of the raped. It is a stautory construction where it is incidcated that someone below a certain age is incapable of giving informed consent. This goes for people who are unconscious, feeble minded, etc. as well.
One may haggle about the age but it is clear that there are people who are not yet sophisticated enough to make an inteligent and knowing decision in the area of sex.
In California, there are various types of statutory rape depending not only on the age of the raped but on the age of the rapist. An 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is not treated the same way as a 27 year old having sex with a 10 year old. This is because the inequality in the ability to judge and cajole is much different in the latter over the former.
It is a defense to statutory rape in California that the victim could reasonably have been assumed to have been above the statutory age. Thus the appearance of the victim would be relevant to guilt or innocence but not necessarily to punishment. I find it virtually impossible to believe that a 10-year old could be mistaken for a 16-year old in any circumstances. Hiowever, I can see a judge wanting to take in to account what the girl looked like at the time in deciding just how wrong the action was and what punishment was appropriate.
If the girl looked 14 say then the punishment might well be less than if she was wearing her girl scout uniform and carrying her school books for 4th grade.
The law in this area should retain a degree of flexibility as to punishment. However, it must be remembered that the men either pled guilty or were convicted of the crime. Thus they either abandoned the defense that she looked 16 or it was rejected at trial. Either way they deserved punishment. For the judge to have gone so leniently either the evidence must have indicated that she sid look older than 10 or the judge was a paedo himself.
|
|
|
2 Jul 2007, 22:59
|
#25
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
There has never been an initiative in the house of parliament regarding the obligatory military service in Finland - why - because nobody wants to discuss that part of equality.
|
I think there's some kind of UN statement against conscripting women (that may be crap though) and I think Israel is the only country that does. That doesn't lessen your point however.
Quote:
The question is, will a woman ever suggest a 40% male requirement to universities? No. What would happen if a man did? He'd be labeled a chauv.
|
How can you say for certain that a woman will never suggest a quota for men in certain fields? It might be unlikely now, but that's probably because they're not needed. Gender imbalances in terms of employment are not (by themselves) evidence of discrimination. The majority of people who clean offices seem to be women, for example, but that does not mean men are being excluded by unfair selection policies.
Affirmative action / quotas can be argued against on a range of levels (I am personally against them as a rule) but they still need to be understood in the context they exist in. The reasons that some government agencies in the United States give preferential treatment to "minority firms" when awarding contracts is because of the historical legacy of discrimination that African-Americans have faced. Not because a black cabal is seizing control of the government and turning the screws on the oppressed white man.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 00:55
|
#26
|
I ♡ ☠
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 834
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
Only vaguely related to law and order, but I came across, this forum which amused me no end (in particular the attitudes expressed in that thread).
|
That forum is great! Who said plastic brilliance is the only alternative. (Must remember to recommend that when someone asks for an alternative forum again...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Our steadfast moral guardians
Yes, DGP, but you are basing it on the fact that your mum, and your forebears, knew it was unacceptable to swear in such a manner (as did mine). That's why she was able to, and did, discipline you over that. Which is why you would (one would assume) teach your children the same things.
When society has children, some as young as 7, being brought up as if swearing were the most natural thing in the world (they just might say '######ing' these days as 'mamma' or 'dadda' with their parents' own mode of language), there is no conception that such language is unaccetable because no one has told them otherwise. They then grow up, bringing their children up in the same manner as is happening now.
|
When society fails the police pick up the moral baton and run, run like the protectors of civilisation that they are!
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 04:05
|
#27
|
Aardvark is a funny word
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm No Nino Rota
Posts: 5,923
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
Only vaguely related to law and order, but I came across, this forum which amused me no end (in particular the attitudes expressed in that thread).
|
I missed this the first time I read the thread, only saw it when Weeks quoted.
I hope and pray policespecials.com is looked upon with the same kind of disdain by the rest of the force that Stormfront (say) is by us. Sadly I doubt it. Sweet jesus.
__________________
Efficiency, efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Élysées
Last edited by Phang; 3 Jul 2007 at 04:16.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 05:19
|
#28
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
I think there's some kind of UN statement against conscripting women (that may be crap though) and I think Israel is the only country that does. That doesn't lessen your point however.
|
In fact, it does the exact opposite. Finland conscripts women on voluntary basis (men are forced to, or face 6 months in jail). The issue here could be easily fixed: obligatory military service extended for women, so that the default type of service would be civil service unless otherwise asked for. This would solve both equality issues on the subject and also lessen the problems of lack of workers in the certain care areas. Of course, nobody will ever agree to such a proposition, and even suggesting it would probably break hell.
I could make you a long list of things where men are discriminated in the local society, but that's really pointless.
Quote:
How can you say for certain that a woman will never suggest a quota for men in certain fields? It might be unlikely now, but that's probably because they're not needed.
|
So you're saying that the fact that, for consistently almost ten years now, of accepted university freshmen well more than 60% have been women there's no need for a quota yet? If you say on left hand that PLCs need a 40% women quota (notice: 40%), shouldn't you, on the other hand, be saying that universities should have a 40% male quota? Now, what's different with universities is that the amount of women accepted is on a steady rise (in where I study, the department is closer to 80% women, the whole university at large 67%), the amount of women on the boards and positions is also on steady rise. Some would interpret this as a sign of that on the long run, there's really no need for a quota as the process has been fixing the problem for a while now.
It's stupid to assume that it would change over a decade, obviously without legistlative enforcing.
Quote:
Gender imbalances in terms of employment are not (by themselves) evidence of discrimination. The majority of people who clean offices seem to be women, for example, but that does not mean men are being excluded by unfair selection policies.
|
And a good share of the wage gap can be explained with this. In Finland, some unions claims that the alleged 20% wage gap between the genders is bullshit, and the realistic intraprofessional gap is more like 5-7%. Again, lots of janitors are men, and if you've been following it close to the business, you probably know how difficult it is to get a job as a secretary or assistant without boobs (manboobs don't count here). Again, a lot of women still end up on the low wage business (nurses, teachers), while a lot of men end up on the higher end (business, engineering). You can hardly blame either gender for this, and the fact that the first are public jobs and have certain perks (quaranteed work, nigh impossible to get sacked) should seriously be taken into consideration when comparing to higher wages on private sector (where you'll actually need to work to get work, and where you can never be certain if you'll still have work at the firm in a year).
Quote:
Affirmative action / quotas can be argued against on a range of levels (I am personally against them as a rule) but they still need to be understood in the context they exist in.
|
But placing a quota for a number such as 40% of the PLC board members have to be female is in fact discriminating men. Because, it forces people's hands very heavily. Strikingly, simultaneously there has not been a 40% men quota introduced in Norway (again, the matriarchal order), for which there is no reason to, and which just underpins that in such cases the quota isn't about equality, but about discriminating men - why shoulnd't there be a quota to quarantee 40% men too, when it's already forced there'll be 40% women. It's not only adverse selection it leads to.
There is absolutely no excuse to allow a quota if the direct follow-up of the quota is that the things turn inside out - replacing discriminating one gender with discriminating other takes us nowhere, except towards a matriarchal order.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 07:53
|
#29
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
So you're saying that the fact that, for consistently almost ten years now, of accepted university freshmen well more than 60% have been women there's no need for a quota yet?
|
As I said in my last post I am against quotas anyway, but no - simply because there's a 60/40 split in admissions doesn't justify quotas by themselves. They are generally justiifed where there is presumed to be a systematic bias against applicants (usually because those who are in control of a given field are indirectly or directly prejudiced). "Equality" in terms of exactly the same number of people of each gender working in a given field is not a goal of any sane person - it's that people have equal opportunity to work in a field if they so desire. If you could show systematic bias against men in university applications, I suspect you could challenge it in the courts, taking the issue to the EU if required.
But the number of people being admitted to university is not (by itself) evidence of anything at all. On one of the courses I did at University I was the only male - but that's because it was a language-esque course and girls flock to that sort of shit. In the engineering faculty of the same university, the courses were often without a single female (or so I'm told). Is this evidence of prejudice against women in engineering and males in language courses? Maybe, but it's impossible to tell just by looking at the numbers.
Quote:
If you say on left hand that PLCs need a 40% women quota (notice: 40%), shouldn't you, on the other hand, be saying that universities should have a 40% male quota?
|
No, that doesn't stand to reason at all. A target is supposed to redress some sort of systematic imbalance. A target we (where I work) have to aim for at is that approximately 18% of our allocations in certain areas should be to black/minority households. We don't have a converse policy that 82% should be to white families because there's no historical evidence of long term racial discrimination against whites. Quotas are generally an unpleasant solution to a problem, not something you introduce as soon as the numbers aren't exactly even.
In general, they're introduced when it's assumed an existing domination of one group makes equal entry by another group into a field difficult. So you mention that 60% of admissions are females. Is that matched up by other areas of public life? Well, the UN statistics ( http://w3.unece.org/pxweb/database/S...nddecision.asp) available say :
79% of University heads were male. (for 2002/03)
80% of what they term "chief editors" are male
62% of parliamentarians are males
53% of judges were male (for 2000, the last years stats were available)
73% of senior civil servants were male
So, despite what you say, females hardly to be massively dominating every aspect of Finnish life. If they were, if the majority of university heads, senior civil servants, parliamentaries, editors of newspapers, heads of companies, etc were female then a quota on university admissions might make sense (although I would add yet again, I would still oppose it on principle). But you're no way near that, and whining because you get bullied at school by the girls seems a bit lame. ![Frown](images/smilies/frown.gif) If women are running your country (god knows how) or if there's a law you consider unfair, break it, protest it, campagin against it. Maybe all "hell will break loose" if you do, but so what?
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 09:07
|
#30
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
But you're no way near that, and whining because you get bullied at school by the girls seems a bit lame.
|
Again, this is called seriously not getting the point. But let's twist it a little. Whining because boys get discriminated in school by female teachers (which is what many are currently saying on the public debate, and which I will below elaborate) is lame. Whining because women get discriminated by men in the working life isn't. Good job Dante, you're really hitting the red button of the equality debate. Which is what I'm on about - not claiming that the society was matriarchal, but that the current with-quota-to-equality is only taking it to a direction where there's a) institutional systematic discrimination towards men (see: a suggested quota of minimum 40% women in PLC boards, matriarchalism) b) adverse selection. Read below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
"Equality" in terms of exactly the same number of people of each gender working in a given field is not a goal of any sane person - it's that people have equal opportunity to work in a field if they so desire. If you could show systematic bias against men in university applications, I suspect you could challenge it in the courts, taking the issue to the EU if required.
|
What comes to equality, you're slowly getting on to my point here. There's no systematic bias against men in university applications - but there has been a public debate where the general opinion coming from psychologists and academics is that the Finnish scholastic system favours women in the methodology, and has systematic bias. This can be elaborated by the fact that in high school, females get better grades on courses. This is reversed, or better said, leveled, at the point where the final exams come. The final exams are ultimately judged by teachers and acadamians who have probably never met a single person whose exams they check. This is where the female teachers - female students -axis that has been recently discussed in the major news papers (including the Helsingin Sanomat) gets cut off. Some might argue the damage has already been done at that point. I'm not overly concerned about such,though.
Quote:
But the number of people being admitted to university is not (by itself) evidence of anything at all. On one of the courses I did at University I was the only male - but that's because it was a language-esque course and girls flock to that sort of shit. In the engineering faculty of the same university, the courses were often without a single female (or so I'm told). Is this evidence of prejudice against women in engineering and males in language courses? Maybe, but it's impossible to tell just by looking at the numbers.
|
No, it's more like the typical gender social assumptions. Women become nurses, men become engineers (and this also contributes to the much debated wage gap regarding equality).
Quote:
No, that doesn't stand to reason at all. A target is supposed to redress some sort of systematic imbalance.
|
Indeed.
Quote:
Quotas are generally an unpleasant solution to a problem, not something you introduce as soon as the numbers aren't exactly even.
|
I'll return to this below.
Quote:
62% of parliamentarians are males
|
And 60% of ministers are female. So?
Quote:
So, despite what you say, females hardly to be massively dominating every aspect of Finnish life.
|
No no, women aren't dominating the society in the term mentioned. You've missed the whole point - what I am talking about, is how stupid forcing quotas such as 40% females in PLC boards is, and how the only direction such quotas can take is to cause adverse selection and to discriminate the other gender. Equality will never be reached by discriminating either of the genders. Let's take the theory.
A PLC a has 20% of it's board women.
A PLC b has 20% of it's board men.
Both PLCs have rationally chosen boards they find are most capable of performing their jobs, hence no adverse selection has happened. Assuming both boards are fit at equal size, the "equality" comes true on number terms. Now we introduce a quota of 40% women. PLC b is fine with the quota, as it changes nothing. PLC b will have to sack some men and replace them with less competent women. Discriminating due to gender happens, as does adverse selection. While the generic picture is that males are predominant in the PLC boards, this should elaborate that a quota will nevertheless introduce discriminating and adverse selection.
I think in the debate concerning equality introducing further discriminating of either gender in order to reduce discriminating on the other gender is wrong, and that's what I'm going after. I'm going after the fact that women aren't the only bit of the society that is being discriminated - while the figures will say that men are in "charge" (which is true in a perspective), we will never achieve an equality with compensating the situation through discrimination. The way to work is from below, to start with the educational level and root out the prejudice. If you look at the development of the figures, you can already see this happening. It's producing results. The thing is, when you start a project like this it isn't going to complete to even close to "balanced" figures in a decade. Maybe not two. Three will be realistic. The current society is lead by men who have been around after and during the wars, and when the society has been widely different in what comes to women's position. They're prejudiced and discriminating, more or less intentionally, women because of that. But the thing is, the women of their age do the same. Many elderly women will agree with certain sexist statements. You can introduce a quota and force things in, but that's further discriminating and I'm not a fan of working things out through revenge and further force.
So what is wrong at the moment? At the moment, as Minister Wallin said, the equality debate (in Finland) is focused on women. It's actually all about women, it's no longer really about equality. We keep wondering how to improve women's position in the society, and Haatainen comes up with a quota from Norway (of which Allfather already expressed his opinion on IRC as we talked, and you can guess what it was). Yes, the quota will nominally balance things. In the real world, it will cause friction. It's solving the problem by sweeping it under the carpet. Yes, you can hide the waste, but it will remain there. What needs to be done? The equality debate needs to move more into a direction where both genders are participating, and the interest is creating a scheme where both genders are socially equal: not only equal through forced legistlative means. While there are lots of sore points that discriminate women, it's not that black and white. For example, many factions (such as Amnesty International) regard the obligatory military service that only hits males as a gross violation of human rights to begin with.
Regarding the topic of the thread: this is another area where lot's of discriminating towards men happens because of social prejudice. It has to do with the mentioned woman's role in the society. I'm all in favour of riddancing those gender social roles, which I find will help achieve better equality. It will not happen through quotas. In fact, quotas are likely to cause damage to that goal, as, as mentioned, they discriminate one gender. If we take the road of placing a quota that discriminates men on each area we find suitable (a quota for PLC boards, a wage quota for women-orientated industries (inflation HI!, huge raises in hospital expedinture thus government expendintures thus taxes, HI!), a quota for this, and a quota for that. I'm sure there are a million spots that would superficially benefit of a quota. If we'd just slam a 40% women on all executive positions quota, we'd look very equal on numbers. While, in reality, we'd be building a matriarchal order where the position of women is ensured by quotas, not social equality, discriminating men. I'm not in favour of forcing women into military service, either, even if that'd obviously be a huge step towards equality: and, in fact, on short term, it'd help women gain more footage on the upper level tasks (Finland, having the history it has, has plenty of it's - on both public and private sector - executives, directors, and so on ranked high in military reserves; an officer training from military, and good record on rehearsals, say a reserve lieutenant rank, will advance you greatly if you're looking for leadership positions in Finland).
The bottom line is, that social prejudice and inequality (in to extent of female parliamentarists and ministers, and to extent of court handling gender-related cases such as rape and custody cases when it comes down to word against word, given example of can't be fixed
Quote:
If the rape was a 'statutary rape' ie she 'consented' but was below the age of consent, and the man thought she was of legal age and had consented - why shouldn't that result in a lesser sentence?? surely the culpability is reduced??
|
This is an example where there's social gender discrimination. Most of "sane" people will agree that a sixteen-year-old (can lie about her age and) is nowadays fairly well aware what having sex means. In cases like "statutary rape" (to the extent of making laws about it: see the fresh UK suggestion regarding having sex with drunken women), you can find a lot of cans of worms.
Quote:
62% of parliamentarians are males
53% of judges were male (for 2000, the last years stats were available)
73% of senior civil servants were male
|
53% is a bad figure isn't it, and given that 60% of the ministers are female, it's hard to say there's gender discrimination in the parliament anymore. Parliaments change every four years, though, while a senior civil servant can act at his job for thirty years. If he was hired fifteen years ago where discriminating women was "more common", he'll still have good fifteen to go. These changes take time (but if you look at the statistics, the change is happening).
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 10:19
|
#31
|
Aardvark is a funny word
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm No Nino Rota
Posts: 5,923
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
This can be elaborated by the fact that in high school, females get better grades on courses. This is reversed, or better said, leveled, at the point where the final exams come. The final exams are ultimately judged by teachers and acadamians who have probably never met a single person whose exams they check. This is where the female teachers - female students -axis that has been recently discussed in the major news papers (including the Helsingin Sanomat) gets cut off. Some might argue the damage has already been done at that point. I'm not overly concerned about such,though.
|
you know, it's funny. We've had that for forty years or so, and always put it down to one of those little behavioural-psych things. I don't think anyone in the history of British academia has pointed to it as proof that there's an oppressive matriarchal conspiracy in our schools. How little we know
__________________
Efficiency, efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Élysées
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 12:02
|
#32
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phang
you know, it's funny. We've had that for forty years or so, and always put it down to one of those little behavioural-psych things. I don't think anyone in the history of British academia has pointed to it as proof that there's an oppressive matriarchal conspiracy in our schools. How little we know ![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
|
*sigh*
Indeed, behavioural-psychological.
While you could educate in more practical less theoretical methods in schools which would then again fit more active young boys better. That's behavioural-psychological too. If you've known it for forty years, why not do anything about it?
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 15:59
|
#33
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Good job Dante, you're really hitting the red button of the equality debate. Which is what I'm on about - not claiming that the society was matriarchal
|
You're claiming it's iminent. And I've said several times I don't agree with quotas you idiot - I am merely pointing out that a quota is no evidence at all of a matriarchal order (impending or otherwise). There are quotas for black people in certain fields, but no quotas for white people. This does not mean that we're heading towards a black dominated society. BUT QUOTAS ARE SHIT ANYWAY.
And your "60% of ministers" stuff is rather misleading since as far as I can tell, you're talking about out of what, 20? And how many times has this happened in the last 80 years? Gee, how can you survive with that female jackboot stomping down on your face?
Jesus, you sound like a pathetic redneck complaining about affirmative action taking his job because those black folks are getting too uppity.
Quote:
Whining because women get discriminated by men in the working life isn't.
|
Who said that? Whining is generally a waste of time. Get off your arse and challenge the system, rather than giving bullshit excuses like "if a man did x the feminists would freak" - it sounds spineless and pathetic.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 18:24
|
#34
|
Victim of Marriage
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 784
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
I had a boss who's brother got 2 years for statutory rape. I don't know how old he was, but when he met the girl she was driving a van, and said she was 21 and I'm guessing looked and acted such...she was actually 13, and the age of consent in my state is 18.
While I think that the 13 year old had no business dressing up and acting 21, it seems that it's more common now than it used to be that teenagers are trying to get away with this, either to look cool, get into clubs, or just to screw with guys...it's the men who fall for it that get in trouble. However, I say if you're dumb enough to let your dick do your thinking and have sex with a girl you don't know especially if they look under 25 or so, you're running the risk of statutory rape because she may not actually be as old as she acts or says she is. So, I say if they get caught on it, then they deserve to get whatever sentence they're given because they were stupid enough to be misled by someone under the age of consent.
__________________
You mean there's life outside the internet...oh man I'm screwed.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 18:51
|
#35
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
You're claiming it's iminent. And I've said several times I don't agree with quotas you idiot - I am merely pointing out that a quota is no evidence at all of a matriarchal order (impending or otherwise). There are quotas for black people in certain fields, but no quotas for white people. This does not mean that we're heading towards a black dominated society. BUT QUOTAS ARE SHIT ANYWAY.
|
If you have statistical evidence that the discriminating is on decline, further booting it up with insanely large quotas like 40% (which is a huge amount, isn't it), can definately not be qualified "equality".
Quote:
And your "60% of ministers" stuff is rather misleading since as far as I can tell, you're talking about out of what, 20? And how many times has this happened in the last 80 years? Gee, how can you survive with that female jackboot stomping down on your face?
|
Gee, how the patriarchal, male-dominated society has 53% of their judges male! God, how can you bear that Dante, it's 3% more than women, assuming there are no androgynes or similars. Wow. The chauvinism is really beating the shit out of them here! Especially given the statistical decline of the gap during recent 20 years. I'm sure the fact that there are 3% more male judges than female judges is the reason why the US used to define Finland as a state supporting terrorism. (Admitted, maybe they realized 3% isn't that much and realized it's ackward to make one terrorists because of that).
Quote:
79% of University heads were male. (for 2002/03)
80% of what they term "chief editors" are male
62% of parliamentarians are males
53% of judges were male (for 2000, the last years stats were available)
73% of senior civil servants were male
|
Finland isn't a huge country. There aren't that many universities - twenty will probably do. Also, the house of parliament isn't so large either - there's 200. Also, it's elected by the people, majority of which are female. What comes to judges, 53% is pretty much half, isn't it? I'm not sure what defines senior civil servant either, but I guess that depends too. If you're talking about heads of departments, the Financial Inspection I guess has more women than men on those posts, to begin with. The 73% is a declining figure.
Quote:
Jesus, you sound like a pathetic redneck complaining about affirmative action taking his job because those black folks are getting too uppity.
|
You're still missing the point. I'm not complaining about action being taken to work for equality and equal rights despite gender. I'm critisizing the methods used to reach it, and I'm critisizing (as with what the current Minister of Health And Social is) the debate for being single-minded.
I'm not sure how the debate is in the Uk, but you sound just like another pathetic, narrow-minded idiot who thinks that the only way to reach equality is to discriminate the dominant gender, instead of actually working on the roots of the problems - which arise from education and raising kids.
Quote:
Who said that? Whining is generally a waste of time. Get off your arse and challenge the system, rather than giving bullshit excuses like "if a man did x the feminists would freak" - it sounds spineless and pathetic.
|
Of course, but that's what being done at the moment - the single-sided equality debate is being publically challenged (and yes, the politician who initiated it has already had very negative columns written about by certain female columnists of widespread a widespread magazine).
Quote:
I had a boss who's brother got 2 years for statutory rape. I don't know how old he was, but when he met the girl she was driving a van, and said she was 21 and I'm guessing looked and acted such...she was actually 13, and the age of consent in my state is 18.
|
These are the kind of things where the system works in a rather biased way, and these are exactly the sort of things that aren't involved in the debate about equality, social discrimination by gender, and prejudice towards gender. As by the topic of the thread, a rape sentense was too lenient, wasn't it? This is again yet empirical evidence of "X feminists freaking". It's difficult to say about the details of this case, as there's little data available, except for Dr Michelle is probably female. A more evident case was with the German tourist boy and the UK girl who was 13 and claimed being in legal age. It's a word-against-word scenario, and for the good luck of the 17-y-o boy, it's all happening in Turkey.
Quote:
However, I say if you're dumb enough to let your dick do your thinking and have sex with a girl you don't know especially if they look under 25 or so, you're running the risk of statutory rape because she may not actually be as old as she acts or says she is. So, I say if they get caught on it, then they deserve to get whatever sentence they're given because they were stupid enough to be misled by someone under the age of consent.
|
Now imagine if they install a law which makes sex with a drunken woman rape. You'll be running around with an alcometer and concent forms if you plan on having casual sex with someone who might have had a few drinks!
Last edited by Tietäjä; 3 Jul 2007 at 18:58.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 19:11
|
#36
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 19:17
|
#37
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Why should (would?) a country with a predominantly female population be split 50/50?
Edit: For all the shit in the thread, you linking to the Daily Mail has got to be the worst.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 19:23
|
#38
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
I blame Digg. Besides, the article has some actual bits to it, too.
Quote:
In March, the Deputy Lord Chief Justice Sir Igor Judge (CORR), and two other senior judges, quashed the conviction of software engineer Benjamin Bree, 25, jailed for five years in December after a drunken evening with a 19-year-old student.
The girl told the jury that she did not want to have sex, but Mr Bree told the court she had given her consent.
Sir Igor said sex amounts to rape if the woman is incapable of giving consent.
|
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 19:27
|
#39
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Yeah, I wouldn't rely on the tabloids for information.
Also, you didn't answer my question.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 19:30
|
#40
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
I wouldn't know which one of your local magazines is a tabloid, though! Thank you for politely pointing it out, though, I'm sure I'll regard you as a moron in the future too.
I never claimed it should or would, the point was that there have been more women in responsible for electing the government for years and years now, which was just to hint out that it's not only men who discriminate women on occasions. And to elaborate how useless it make equality judgements regarding the 200 members of parliament elected by 18 and above year olds and then judging the 20 ministers as a poor measure of equality.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 19:32
|
#41
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
If in doubt, stick to the BBC.
You still havn't answered my question.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 19:36
|
#42
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
What question?
Quote:
Why should (would?) a country with a predominantly female population be split 50/50?
|
This one? Let me answer: I didn't claim it should be split 50/50. It was a blunt comparsion. The predominance is at around 1-2%.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 19:51
|
#43
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 3,347
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
What question?
This one? Let me answer: I didn't claim it should be split 50/50. It was a blunt comparsion. The predominance is at around 1-2%.
|
In the UK at least, there have never been a reflection of population figures in the work place. It has always been dominated by men. I can't imagine it's any difference in Finland.
I'm having difficulty understanding what you are complaining about. Is it because there is legislation trying to redress the imbalance? there seems to be agreement that quotas are not the best way to address things, but considering glass ceilings and all that, it seems like a short-term measure to redress the balance. Of course this alone is simply covering up a greater social problem, but to say it is a sign of some female conspiracy is just a joke.
I wouldn't worry about women taking over. If rich white males genuinely felt threatened by this state of affairs then there would be a massive movement to stop it.
__________________
The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
|
|
|
3 Jul 2007, 20:00
|
#44
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by All Systems Go
I'm having difficulty understanding what you are complaining about. Is it because there is legislation trying to redress the imbalance? there seems to be agreement that quotas are not the best way to address things, but considering glass ceilings and all that, it seems like a short-term measure to redress the balance. Of course this alone is simply covering up a greater social problem, but to say it is a sign of some female conspiracy is just a joke.
|
The attempt to build matriarchal order - is a spike I used to elaborate the equality debate. Obviously it's not going to happen, but obviously, that's how the debate is - in Finland - the participating parties (hereby, women), are only really interested in discussing what problems the participating parties (hereby, women) suffer, and interested in fixing the problem with the methods like the mentioned quota.
Quotas, and such, are really a bad short term measure to adjust. Why? Because if you issue a short-term fix that will cause trouble on long term, it's a bit of a silly move? Why would it cause problems on the long term? Because it's essentially an institution built to discriminate the other gender in an attempt to reduce discrimination on the other gender. Either it will eventually have to be removed (which would say when the effect of the other programs, see below has been achieved), during which we're stuck with adverse selection issues and probably more friction between the genders (caused by legistlatively forcing in a limitation in the freedom of choice for PLCs, for example). Instead, a long-term fix, improving the education and so-related, in the subject, would provide less if any drawbacks (adverse selection, friction caused, possible counter-reactions), but would take longer. If we look at the statistics displayed by Dante Hicks, we can already see a difference - take 50 years back and you wouldn't have 53% of judges male, you'd have 99.95% or 100%. Achieved without quotas, through education and changes in the social mechanisms related to raising children and informing about the subject.
Quote:
I wouldn't worry about women taking over. If rich white males genuinely felt threatened by this state of affairs then there would be a massive movement to stop it.
|
I would worry more about the equality debate at large demolishing itself. Because it's a discussion worth having in governmental level, and making it a bicker where one gender is discussing to itself will definately make the rich white males genuinely not discriminate.
Edit. What this a lot has to do with the thread? The thread was started given certain prejudices that exist about men - which should also be included in the discussion of gender equality and the social changes required to make the system "more equal". Rape cases, while a lot are valid and while the crime is blatantly horrible, present a certain degree of discrimination - at least here, and especially on word-against-word cases (the first that springs to mind is the Vesa Keskinen incident, where he had sex with an 18-year-old - who was drunk - and accused Keskinen of raping her later; taking that she was at Keskinen's mansion at an afterparty of her own concent, and that the man is piss rich, and obviously offered them drinks, it's become more or less evident that the girls are just trying to cash in on her - it's being processed at the moment, but we'll see; as no signs of violence were found, it comes down to whether or not the 18-year-old was "made to drink herself drunk" or not, which essentially comes down to word against word and the judgement of the judge whether or not an 18-year-old can be "made to drink herself drunk" without violence).
|
|
|
5 Jul 2007, 20:39
|
#45
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Rape sentence too 'lenient'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Edit. What this a lot has to do with the thread? The thread was started given certain prejudices that exist about men - which should also be included in the discussion of gender equality and the social changes required to make the system "more equal". Rape cases, while a lot are valid and while the crime is blatantly horrible, present a certain degree of discrimination - at least here, and especially on word-against-word cases
|
Sure. And I don't think you'll find many people (here, I mean) who seriously think quotas (especially something like a 40% quota you mention) is any way a good idea. My objection is to the your suggestion that this is part of some wider (sinister sounding) conspiracy of some kind to build a "matriarchal order". There is legislation in place in parts of the world which is definitely "anti-men". There is also legislation which could be term "anti-women". The existence of one does not justify the other (as every child is taught, two wrongs don't make a write).
Rape cases are difficult to discuss in particular because (much like criminal cases generally) we (the public) are not in possession of all the facts. Sure, neither are juries in some cases, but they'll have a damn sight more idea what's going on than us, and there's a Judge in plan to try and impose some sort of fairness in the debate. For the rest of us, we might be reliant on newspapers (often very poor tabloids with apalling journalistic standards) for our information. And it doesn't even matter what their bias is - the reportage is so shit to be almsot useless. I've no idea whether this girl (in the original post) looked 10, or 5 or 68. But I can comment on the general principle of how the law might (or should) treat offences against someone who looks much younger/older than they are.
Where we are going to make general comments, about matriarchal orders, then I'd merely prefer they evidence their case a little better, and try to separate from the specifics of this (and other) criminal cases (again, which we know precious little about).
Finally, it'd be absolutley spiffing if we avoided this syndrome...
POSTER 1 : "I really like cheese sandwhiches. Oh, and entirely unrelated to this, I think Hitler was a truly bad person - probably the most evil man in history, responsible for the most horrible crimes against humanity."
POSTER 2 : "Cheese? Are you crazy? I prefer ham. I can't believe that you, and your cheese and nazi loving friends still think this. Let me link you to this holocaust webiste which tells us all about the crimes of the nazis and of your evident idol, Mr Hitler. You probably want to marry him and eat cheese sandwhiches at the reception."
And so on.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:07.
| |