Disclaimer

By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

Thoughts on "patriarchy"

Feminists try to excuse their dismissal of men's issues as not as important, big, or impacting as women's issues on the claim that women are oppressed by "patriarchy," which in turn benefits all men. They conclude that men are never oppressed, discrimination against men isn't discrimination, and men who are abused don't suffer as much as women who are abused because all men have this phantom benefit to offset any suffering they might experience.

At the same time, feminists excuse their dismissal of the need for a men's rights movement by claiming that men's issues are caused by "patriarchy," and since feminism is fighting "patriarchy," feminism fights to make things better for men, because "patriarchy hurts men, too." They conclude from this that there is no need for a men's movement, because feminism has its function covered.

Putting the two side by side really makes their incompatibility obvious. If all men receive some suffering-eliminating benefit from "patriarchy," and therefore no men are oppressed, then "patriarchy hurts men, too" doesn't make sense. If "patriarchy" hurts men, too, then men's issues cannot be dismissed with "but 'patriarchy,' so women's issues are worse," because if "patriarchy" hurts both sexes, then its influence on women's experiences doesn't make them any worse than men's experiences, which feminists claim it also impacts.

These incompatible concepts really need to be addressed with feminists who use them as arguments against men's advocacy related to men's issues, not because feminists need to get their shit together and narrow it down to one argument, but because the fact that they do regularly throw both of them out there indicates that their objection to men's human rights advocacy is completely unrelated to its legitimacy - they're simply willing to say anything to shut MRAs up.

Honeybadger radio airs again

The people of Salem, Massachusetts in the 1600s lived in a culture that accepted the existence of the devil, assorted demons and other evil spirits, including witches, and which encouraged them to blame all misfortune and conflict in the community on these supernatural causes.

The people of the modern day West live in a culture that largely accepts the existence the Patriarchy, Rape Culture, and Cultural Misogyny, and which encourages them to blame all misfortune and conflict in the community--from rape to domestic violence to the pay gap to male-only conscription--on these ethereal and unfalsifiable "social constructs".

The Salem witch trials began with accusations against an opposing camp--a rival family in the community engaged in a long-standing feud with the family of the accused.

The flurry of recent sexual misconduct accusations in the Atheist/skeptic community essentially began with an invitation to continue a conversation over coffee, proffered by an unnamed man in an elevator. That invitation was ground zero for the splintering of that community into two rival camps--one which embraced skepticism and the rejection of any notion of an invisible, unmeasurable superior power that rules all our lives, and one which embraced dogmatism.

A witch hunt has begun in the skeptic community--one side asking for evidence, and the other demanding blind faith. Who will prevail? God knows...

Join Karen Straughan(Girl Writes What), Alison Tieman(Typhonblue) and me at 9 pm Eastern time, 6PM pacific time on August 22, 2013 for the second episode of AVfM's honey badger radio.
Show Link:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2013/08/23/honey-badger-radio-a-witch-hunt-in-atheism

Karen Straughan (Girl Writes What):

blog: http://owningyourshit.blogspot.ca

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcmnLu5cGUGeLy744WS-fsg

Alison Tieman (Typhonblue):

Blog: www.genderratic.com

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/Genderratic

Della Burton (Oneiorosgrip)

This is my blog. You can also see some of my writing at http://www.avoiceformen.com/author/gloria-sass/

Sex crimes, rehabilitation, and lists... a simple question

How is the use of mandatory convicted sex offender rehabilitation programs in the penal system rationally compatible with keeping a sex offender registry after an individual's sentence is served?

If the registries are needed because sex offenders can't be truly rehabilitated and must always be monitored, then aren't sex offender rehab programs a waste of federal spending?

If the purpose of sex offender rehab programs is to teach these offenders not to commit sex crimes, but after they've completed the programs, they're still considered so dangerous as to require public vigilance, then what is the measurable benefit to these programs?

If we still have to register convicts after they graduate from sex offender rehabilitation programs, why are we spending so much money on something that apparently doesn't work?

If these programs do work, and do achieve the goal their proponents claim, then their graduates shouldn't need to be registered, and using registries to impose a stigma on them that will limit their employment and residential prospects is cruel and unusual punishment.

If graduation from a sex offender rehabilitation program means the graduates have been successful at adopting behavioral modification techniques that will prevent future offense, why stigmatize them as potential offenders by applying a lifetime label that is now apparently false?

Either the combination of these systems is irrational and reform is needed, or they're being used as a means of soothing public emotion related to sex crimes, rather than as functional aspects of the penal system. In other words, we're sacrificing one group's right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, in order to make another group feel safer.

The logical answer would be that successful graduates of well-designed sex-offender rehabilitation programs wouldn't need to be registered and monitored for the rest of their lives, because if we still need to keep tabs on them, that's an admission that they're not really rehabilitated; sex offender rehab programs are ineffective, and we need to stop funding them. In fact, I question the logic of parole in cases of offenders who remain a threat to the public despite efforts at rehabilitation. If an individual is so mentally and morally corrupt that they cannot help but repeat crimes so terrible as to justify the stigma of being on a sex offender list, wouldn't that also justify keeping them incarcerated to prevent future offenses?

If these programs are effective, graduates are rehabilitated, and just to cater to other public emotion, we're imposing restrictions on people no more likely than the average citizen to victimize anyone, that's a form of bigotry, and a human rights violation that needs to end.

Either way, I just cannot see maintaining a sex offender registry as a rational behavior. It seems to me that rather than focusing on crime prevention, the effort centers around responding to public emotion, a gross perversion of the intended purpose of the legal and penal systems.

Got a letter from the CDC - brief update.

According to the letter I've received from the CDC's FOIA office, their delay in responding to my request is due to filling requests made prior to mine. As soon as requests which are in line ahead of me have been taken care of, I'll receive an answer.

Just to see where they are in filling requests, I've checked the numbers closest to mine. I didn't have to go very far back to find one that's closed, and there are requests made after mine which are at "pending program search" status. I hope this means I'll get an answer soon.

 







google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html