*Current statistics for Australia
Thursday, 12 June 2014
Thursday, 22 May 2014
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
Why the Manosphere is not a complete waste of space
The ‘Manosphere’ refers to the recent springing up of a number of apparently ‘anti-feminist’ websites on the internet, most notably ReturnofKings.com, created by Daryush Valizadeh, who blogs under the name ‘Roosh’.
Articles on the site cover a fairly broad range of topics, from politics to history to society. There are different bloggers with different opinions, but overall the site tends to be very socially conservative and argue in favor of traditional gender roles, i.e. – that it is generally best if men stick to acting 'masculine' and women stick to acting 'feminine'.
Predictably, many others on the internet, feminists in particular, have condemned the mere existence of these websites. The Southern Poverty Law Center in the US has labelled Return of Kings a hate site, while it has been described on Jezebel, with their usual charm, as a 'disgusting, misogynistic website, a non-stop stream of vitriolic, horrifying garbage' and a 'compendium of fetid little trolls who sit in a troll-pile, rubbing bits of fossilized troll-poop together while gleefully squalling about how much they hate ugly chicks...'
I’ll admit many aspects of the site are distasteful. The site’s policy of banning comments from ‘women and homosexuals’ speaks for itself. It’s a very blokey, conservative website. Having said that however, there are a few things I’d like to conclude. I’ve been scrolling through Return of King articles every now and then for a few months now, and many of them I've found refreshingly candid. For instance -
http://www.returnofkings.com/9932/the-15-magical-years-of-womanhood
http://www.returnofkings.com/18782/fat-shaming-week
http://www.returnofkings.com/25448/5-reasons-why-the-gender-pay-gap-is-bogus
http://www.returnofkings.com/29099/how-trigger-warnings-silence-dissent-and-protect-fragile-egos
http://www.returnofkings.com/9932/the-15-magical-years-of-womanhood
http://www.returnofkings.com/18782/fat-shaming-week
http://www.returnofkings.com/25448/5-reasons-why-the-gender-pay-gap-is-bogus
http://www.returnofkings.com/29099/how-trigger-warnings-silence-dissent-and-protect-fragile-egos
These are the sorts of articles you’d never see on the Huffington Post, or CNN, or really anywhere else. They would certainly never see the light of day on Jezebel, where they'd be labeled ‘sexist’ and ‘misogynist’ quicker than you could blink. Yet, as someone who tries to be an impartial judge of everything I read on the internet, no matter how shocking it may seem at first, I can't help but admit I've found myself slowly nodding along as I read them. Even though I generally consider myself to be a left-wing progressive, much of their criticism of the left rings very true. I would urge people to have a thorough read of the site before criticizing it.
Having said that, there’s a lot of ridiculous crap on the website as well, especially from those railing against homosexuals and abortion. A lot of the comments are completely over the top as well. An article may make a basically well-reasoned argument that women might be underrepresented in parliaments because they tend to have less interest in politics for instance, only for it to be followed by a flood of comments by obviously bitter men who take things completely over the top. From one single article we have examples like:
'Tumblr social justice warriors are by far the biggest pieces of shit humanity has ever seen.'
'professional victims are nothing but closeted fascists. by trying to ban the publication of articles, trying to ban words and plain-old being bitchy with anyone with a dissenting opinion, you fucked-up women are bringing a new dark age unto humanity. 1984, anyone?'
'the tumblr community is the most closed-minded fanatical hypocritical bunch of sorry excuses for human beings since jezebel. just goes to show that when you get a bunch of hens together, NOTHING GOOD CAN COME OUT OF IT'
Regardless of the pros and cons of the website, it is a separate question entirely to ask – so why does the manosphere exist? Where did all this seemingly bitter, hateful men come from? For a typical Jezebel user, it seems an impossible question to answer. Likewise, Manosphere users seem to have total contempt for feminists as well.
'Tumblr social justice warriors are by far the biggest pieces of shit humanity has ever seen.'
'professional victims are nothing but closeted fascists. by trying to ban the publication of articles, trying to ban words and plain-old being bitchy with anyone with a dissenting opinion, you fucked-up women are bringing a new dark age unto humanity. 1984, anyone?'
'the tumblr community is the most closed-minded fanatical hypocritical bunch of sorry excuses for human beings since jezebel. just goes to show that when you get a bunch of hens together, NOTHING GOOD CAN COME OUT OF IT'
Regardless of the pros and cons of the website, it is a separate question entirely to ask – so why does the manosphere exist? Where did all this seemingly bitter, hateful men come from? For a typical Jezebel user, it seems an impossible question to answer. Likewise, Manosphere users seem to have total contempt for feminists as well.
So please, parties on both sides of this social and political divide, allow me to reveal the secrets of the universe to you - as to why you find each other so utterly baffling.
When it comes to explaining how people act in society - an important question that ties into all sorts of fields from politics to economics, there has been a major divide between left and right in recent history. Basically, it comes down to the question of nurture vs nature. Are people's actions inherently programmed, or can they be molded by society?
It should be obvious which side believes in which. The left believes that concepts like race, class and, of particular relevance here - gender, are manmade. They have been created by people, and thus can be unmade in turn.
The right meanwhile, believes that such distinctions in society are generally a lot more inherent. Thus, they cannot be changed, and any attempts to do so will only end in disaster.
Herein lies the impasse. Feminists and other progressives view initiatives to enforce equality between men and women as beneficial, if not a moral imperative. If men's disproportionate wealth and influence in society is an unnatural phenomenon, then by definition women must be oppressed, and freeing them from that oppression can only be a good thing.
Manosphere users however, see it as self-evident that, for various reasons I'll elaborate on in a moment, men's greater influence in society is not a mistake, but to some extent completely natural. Women perform different roles in society because they are better suited to them. Such roles are not necessarily worse mind you, just different. Many Return of Kings articles point to things like far higher accident and death rates among male employees as reasons for why they are paid more, not because of any fundamental bias.
Now as for the reasons why, we enter very politically incorrect territory here, but some of the major reasons can be summed up quite succinctly. They basically come down to a list of inherent differences suggested to exist between men and women. While individual Return of Kings bloggers may differ as to the specifics of this list, a brief summary could go something like this:
- Men are generally physically larger than women, thus better suited to many more physically demanding jobs
- Men are generally more aggressive then women, thus tend to handle confrontations and deal with the stress of leadership positions better
- Men generally have higher sex drives then women, thus tend to go to greater lengths to impress potential partners
Notice that in these differences, intelligence is not necessarily a factor. Even Manosphere users tend to accept (though I'm sure this would still draw some contention) that women are just as intelligent as men, rather, they tend to have fewer incentives to use this intelligence and turn it into something productive. Sex drives have greater importance here then you may think. Basically, they say, a typical man will go to the ends of the Earth to impress a decent woman. Most women however, are already so saturated with attention from men that there is little need to do this. Given that surveys tend to agree that men desire sex about 2-3 times as often as women, I can't deny they've got a point.
Taking the above differences to their logical conclusion, it is no wonder that their still exists a 'gender pay gap'. Men tend to dominate senior positions, particularly when it comes to parliaments and corporate boards, because relatively few women have proven themselves able to function under such stressful environments. Even lower down, men tend to be paid more because they work longer hours (54% of employee working hours are undergone by men), will perform more dangerous jobs (with 92% of workplace deaths suffered by men) and are physically more capable (only small numbers of women are generally able to pass the fitness tests to become police, firefighters or soldiers for instance).
You will have to do your own research on these differences, but they are the real, fundamental bone of contention here. They are an alternative explanation to mere 'sexism' as to why there are so many areas of society, from parliaments to prisons, where men and women are not split 50-50.
If the feminists are correct, and the above differences are of little real significance, then the Manosphere will be proven wrong in the long run. If these differences are a lot more inherent however, then we will find that the 'glass ceiling' feminists often complain about is not made of glass as all, but instead a block of solid iron that nature herself has put in place. Furthermore, by trying to impose quotas and affirmative action programs that corral greater numbers of women into these positions, you'll be causing a great deal of unhappiness for both sexes, not to mention potential damage to the economy and society to a whole. Plenty of Return of Kings articles follow this mantra.
Regardless of who is right, I will side with the Manosphere on one issue. Dissent in a community should really never be silenced, no matter how cruel or bizarre it might sound at the time. The hysterical overreactions of feminists to the mere existence of bloggers like Roosh has proven that a deep insecurity truly exists in their worldview. He has definitely touched an open nerve. I find it odd also that Roosh has been called the 'most hated man on the internet'. I wonder, what exactly has he done? He hasn't murdered anyone has he? As far as I'm aware he may not even have a criminal record, yet he is despised as if he eats newborn babies for breakfast every day.
No, he is hated because he dares to tell a powerful group of smug, supremely confident people that they might be wrong, that in this case equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes may not completely coincide, and I would say to the Jezebel users of the world, how can you be sure that you're not wrong? Here in the west the wage gap narrowed significantly until about the 1990s, but little progress has been made since then. Might we have taken things too far in demanding equality between two groups of people that may actually be quite fundamentally different? The Manosphere raises a number of compelling arguments you will have to refute, and not just by labeling them 'troll-arguments' and screeching about misogyny, but with calm, well-reasoned logic. I find myself wondering as to the eventual outcome of this debate. At the moment, the Manosphere's rise seems meteoric, but they are still a small, fringe movement that could peak and fade off into obscurity any time soon. Only time will tell.
At the very least, I can't say they're wrong about everything. For that alone, they are not a complete waste of space, as much of the internet seems to think. These guys deserve to be heard. I'd urge anyone interested in gender politics to give Return of Kings a try. It might just shake your worldview a little, which in my experience, is never a bad thing.
It should be obvious which side believes in which. The left believes that concepts like race, class and, of particular relevance here - gender, are manmade. They have been created by people, and thus can be unmade in turn.
The right meanwhile, believes that such distinctions in society are generally a lot more inherent. Thus, they cannot be changed, and any attempts to do so will only end in disaster.
Herein lies the impasse. Feminists and other progressives view initiatives to enforce equality between men and women as beneficial, if not a moral imperative. If men's disproportionate wealth and influence in society is an unnatural phenomenon, then by definition women must be oppressed, and freeing them from that oppression can only be a good thing.
Manosphere users however, see it as self-evident that, for various reasons I'll elaborate on in a moment, men's greater influence in society is not a mistake, but to some extent completely natural. Women perform different roles in society because they are better suited to them. Such roles are not necessarily worse mind you, just different. Many Return of Kings articles point to things like far higher accident and death rates among male employees as reasons for why they are paid more, not because of any fundamental bias.
Now as for the reasons why, we enter very politically incorrect territory here, but some of the major reasons can be summed up quite succinctly. They basically come down to a list of inherent differences suggested to exist between men and women. While individual Return of Kings bloggers may differ as to the specifics of this list, a brief summary could go something like this:
- Men are generally physically larger than women, thus better suited to many more physically demanding jobs
- Men are generally more aggressive then women, thus tend to handle confrontations and deal with the stress of leadership positions better
- Men generally have higher sex drives then women, thus tend to go to greater lengths to impress potential partners
Notice that in these differences, intelligence is not necessarily a factor. Even Manosphere users tend to accept (though I'm sure this would still draw some contention) that women are just as intelligent as men, rather, they tend to have fewer incentives to use this intelligence and turn it into something productive. Sex drives have greater importance here then you may think. Basically, they say, a typical man will go to the ends of the Earth to impress a decent woman. Most women however, are already so saturated with attention from men that there is little need to do this. Given that surveys tend to agree that men desire sex about 2-3 times as often as women, I can't deny they've got a point.
Taking the above differences to their logical conclusion, it is no wonder that their still exists a 'gender pay gap'. Men tend to dominate senior positions, particularly when it comes to parliaments and corporate boards, because relatively few women have proven themselves able to function under such stressful environments. Even lower down, men tend to be paid more because they work longer hours (54% of employee working hours are undergone by men), will perform more dangerous jobs (with 92% of workplace deaths suffered by men) and are physically more capable (only small numbers of women are generally able to pass the fitness tests to become police, firefighters or soldiers for instance).
You will have to do your own research on these differences, but they are the real, fundamental bone of contention here. They are an alternative explanation to mere 'sexism' as to why there are so many areas of society, from parliaments to prisons, where men and women are not split 50-50.
If the feminists are correct, and the above differences are of little real significance, then the Manosphere will be proven wrong in the long run. If these differences are a lot more inherent however, then we will find that the 'glass ceiling' feminists often complain about is not made of glass as all, but instead a block of solid iron that nature herself has put in place. Furthermore, by trying to impose quotas and affirmative action programs that corral greater numbers of women into these positions, you'll be causing a great deal of unhappiness for both sexes, not to mention potential damage to the economy and society to a whole. Plenty of Return of Kings articles follow this mantra.
Regardless of who is right, I will side with the Manosphere on one issue. Dissent in a community should really never be silenced, no matter how cruel or bizarre it might sound at the time. The hysterical overreactions of feminists to the mere existence of bloggers like Roosh has proven that a deep insecurity truly exists in their worldview. He has definitely touched an open nerve. I find it odd also that Roosh has been called the 'most hated man on the internet'. I wonder, what exactly has he done? He hasn't murdered anyone has he? As far as I'm aware he may not even have a criminal record, yet he is despised as if he eats newborn babies for breakfast every day.
No, he is hated because he dares to tell a powerful group of smug, supremely confident people that they might be wrong, that in this case equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes may not completely coincide, and I would say to the Jezebel users of the world, how can you be sure that you're not wrong? Here in the west the wage gap narrowed significantly until about the 1990s, but little progress has been made since then. Might we have taken things too far in demanding equality between two groups of people that may actually be quite fundamentally different? The Manosphere raises a number of compelling arguments you will have to refute, and not just by labeling them 'troll-arguments' and screeching about misogyny, but with calm, well-reasoned logic. I find myself wondering as to the eventual outcome of this debate. At the moment, the Manosphere's rise seems meteoric, but they are still a small, fringe movement that could peak and fade off into obscurity any time soon. Only time will tell.
At the very least, I can't say they're wrong about everything. For that alone, they are not a complete waste of space, as much of the internet seems to think. These guys deserve to be heard. I'd urge anyone interested in gender politics to give Return of Kings a try. It might just shake your worldview a little, which in my experience, is never a bad thing.
Saturday, 1 March 2014
Saturday, 15 February 2014
Wednesday, 8 January 2014
Why I defended a 'child rapist'
A friend of mine posted on FB recently a link reporting that a woman in the US - Mary Kay Letourneau, had been sent to jail. What was her crime? Well in this case merely skipping bail for a matter concerning a suspended driver's license, but this wasn't what my friend was concerned about. The only reason such a minor case made headlines is because this isn't her first stint in jail. Back in the 1990s when she was a teacher she was charged with the rape of a 12 year old student. The person who'd posted the status was outraged, it seems, that she was ever released in the first place, having served a mere seven years for multiple counts of rape, describing her as 'a goddamn child rapist' who 'even murderers consider the lowest of scum'.
On the face of it, it would sound like a pretty reasonable complaint. Why was this woman ever released? Maybe a clue can be found here. Here is the convicted 'rapist' and her 'victim' ten years later -
Confused? It had me wondering to.
The reality of course is somewhat different. She was charged at the time with statutory rape, given that she had sexual relations with someone under the age of 18 (and also her student). Aside from that however, there's no evidence that actual coercion was involved. By their very nature, statutory rape laws have a 'guilty until proven innocent' nature to them, thus there was no need to prove this usually absolutely essential element of rape.
I was compelled to comment on the status, pointing out that, while this women was doubtless guilty of a crime, that doesn't necessarily mean that what she did was wrong. What is illegal and what is wrong are not synonymous terms. Her 'victim' later had two kids with her, married her, and is apparently still with her. She may have broken the law at the time, and you could still argue that at the time punishing her may have been appropriate, but to still label her 'the worst kind of scum' years later? When, in hindsight we can see this was clearly a relationship where, regardless of their age gap, these two people deeply loved each other, as much as any married couple, and have remained together since then despite the widespread condemnation of society?
Now in saying this, I'd never excuse her actions completely of course. The fact that he was her student clearly shows that her behavior was unprofessional to say the least, but for this women to be jailed for a number of years? And still be labelled as 'the worst kind of scum' when her only crime was not sticking to relationships in the politically correct age range? For society to be so determined to break them apart and ruin their lives, because of a number on a piece of paper? I think society ought to calm the hell down a little. Especially given the fact that over 40% of marriages now end in divorce, aren't we being just a little hypocritical judging these two?
In commenting on the status, I even made the point that - 'I think in a hundred years time, history will view this women as a victim rather than a criminal'.
Allow me to elaborate on what I mean by that.
Currently, age of consent laws vary enormously from country to country. Its typically 18 in the US, 16 here in Australia, 14 in Germany or Italy and 13 in Spain or Japan. Even then, these numbers have some flexibility to them. In Australia the penalties go up if the victim is a person under the age of 12 for instance. Most of the world ends up sitting between about 13 and 16, though some countries even forgo an age of consent altogether, in favor of a definition like 'before puberty' or even 'before marriage'. To make things even more convoluted, the age limit tends to shrink further, or even disappear entirely, if two people are close to each other in age. In Australia you can still have sexual relations with someone under the age of 16 (but still over the age of 12) if you are yourself not more than two years older then them. Bearing in mind also that, according to recent surveys, 10% of people lose their virginity before they even turn 14, and that the average age by which people have seen pornography is now 11, clearly the laws are struggling to keep up with modern society as well.
The point I'm making is that, despite people arguing that according to 'the experts', no 12 year old is emotionally mature enough to become sexually active, the reality would seem to be that they really have no clue. Clearly, different experts in different countries with different cultures and different legal systems have come to entirely different conclusions.
The system is imperfect, meaning that innocent people are sometimes going to slip through the cracks, as this women did.
As far as Europeans are concerned, American courts legally sanctioning people for having sexual relations just because one party is not yet 18 is not needed protection, but flat-out persecution. Its like banning interracial marriage, or homosexuality, or...marijuana. Its bizarre, its unnecessary, and it shouldn't be happening.
I basically agree. The laws are really very stringent and arbitrary. Its the government playing gods with people's personal behavior, and it shouldn't be happening without sufficient justification. By definition, this has to be a 'lesser of two evils' argument.
At the very least, I'd probably be supportive of lowering the age of consent here in Australia to a more sensible 14, and review penalties for statutory rape below that age range where its quite clear no actual coercion has occurred (i.e. have a court order separating the perpetrator from the victim, rather than throwing one of them in jail straight away).
Ultimately however, this is just a stopgap, and why I talk of her being viewed as a victim in 'a hundred years time'. Because in the next century or so, science will no doubt march on, and society will march with it.
Eventually, I predict, we will come up with better ways to regulate adolescent sexual relations, and to determine whether someone is 'emotionally mature' enough to have sex, than by simply asking how many orbits of the Earth around that sun that person has been around for. People should understand that psychology as a science is still basically sitting in the 19th century. We have only the most primitive, imprecise methods of even judging, let alone maintaining, people's mental health.
Better science and technology means being able to make better choices, and as history shows, allows us to grow increasingly confident condemning the past behaviors of others. Take slavery for instance, an abhorrent crime yes? Well today sure, but one wonders, how else do you really run a pre-industrial, agricultural economy? Surely its either slavery or serfdom? They're aren't really many other choices. In hindsight its an institution we're able to condemn, but at the time one could argue there was no better system in existence, and thus it was the lesser-most evil then available.
Today's age of consent laws will eventually, I firmly believe, be put into much the same category by future historians. We live in a time before we can accurately judge when people are mature enough to start having sex. Thus we have simply drawn a neat line...somewhere, and threatened people with sanctions if they dare cross it in pursuit of sex or love. You know, just those little things which, as far as most of society is concerned, are among the most precious and desirable things one can ever have in life...
As for what superior means of judging people this may be? Well its hard to tell in our time, but no doubt technology to diagnose people with mental conditions will get better, and before long we should be able to, in all seriousness, delve into people's minds and be able to gauge their maturity, or tell whether they are being sincere, with a much greater deal of accuracy. Basically, among other things, I'm talking about mind-reading. Already, as of 2013, the technology to read people's thoughts just by scanning their brains is in its infancy -
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mind-reading-technology-speeds-ahead
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/16/4842418/stanford-mind-reading-research-with-numbers
Be it in 20 years or 50 years, it will be possible, I guarantee you, to hook someone up to a machine and be able to read their thoughts. To see, for instance, if they are lying, perhaps even to read their memories. Already a number of other technologies have revolutionized the way evidence works in our legal system - fingerprints, DNA evidence, handheld video cameras. Such techniques and devices have no doubt cleared the names of millions of people over the years. Wouldn't it be much better to use such technology to judge cases concerning underage sexual relations on a case-by-case basis, rather than drawing such an absurd line in the sand?
So let us then imagine then, how this case would be dealt with in a hundred years time? Upon receiving complaints that a 34 year old was in a sexual relationship with a 12 year old, Ms Letourneau would probably be brought before a court, and offered to have her mind 'read' to see if it hides any guilt at her actions. This would be followed up, if no coercion could be found, by assessing whether her 12 year old partner was emotionally mature enough to be doing such a thing voluntarily. If everything was found to be in order, i.e. that neither partner was coercing the other, and both were judged mature enough to be engaging in such behavior, then they would be released and left in peace.
No arbitrary line in the sand, no locking up of innocent people, and no uninformed witch-hunting of the sort our primitive 20th century society just loves to indulge in. Just science marching on, and dragging society along with it.
Hence, why we shouldn't be so quick to judge, and why I lament that this women was unjustly locked up. She has been a victim of an imperfect system. One we may not yet be able to improve upon, but doubtless will be able to eventually.
On the face of it, it would sound like a pretty reasonable complaint. Why was this woman ever released? Maybe a clue can be found here. Here is the convicted 'rapist' and her 'victim' ten years later -
Confused? It had me wondering to.
The reality of course is somewhat different. She was charged at the time with statutory rape, given that she had sexual relations with someone under the age of 18 (and also her student). Aside from that however, there's no evidence that actual coercion was involved. By their very nature, statutory rape laws have a 'guilty until proven innocent' nature to them, thus there was no need to prove this usually absolutely essential element of rape.
I was compelled to comment on the status, pointing out that, while this women was doubtless guilty of a crime, that doesn't necessarily mean that what she did was wrong. What is illegal and what is wrong are not synonymous terms. Her 'victim' later had two kids with her, married her, and is apparently still with her. She may have broken the law at the time, and you could still argue that at the time punishing her may have been appropriate, but to still label her 'the worst kind of scum' years later? When, in hindsight we can see this was clearly a relationship where, regardless of their age gap, these two people deeply loved each other, as much as any married couple, and have remained together since then despite the widespread condemnation of society?
Now in saying this, I'd never excuse her actions completely of course. The fact that he was her student clearly shows that her behavior was unprofessional to say the least, but for this women to be jailed for a number of years? And still be labelled as 'the worst kind of scum' when her only crime was not sticking to relationships in the politically correct age range? For society to be so determined to break them apart and ruin their lives, because of a number on a piece of paper? I think society ought to calm the hell down a little. Especially given the fact that over 40% of marriages now end in divorce, aren't we being just a little hypocritical judging these two?
In commenting on the status, I even made the point that - 'I think in a hundred years time, history will view this women as a victim rather than a criminal'.
Allow me to elaborate on what I mean by that.
Currently, age of consent laws vary enormously from country to country. Its typically 18 in the US, 16 here in Australia, 14 in Germany or Italy and 13 in Spain or Japan. Even then, these numbers have some flexibility to them. In Australia the penalties go up if the victim is a person under the age of 12 for instance. Most of the world ends up sitting between about 13 and 16, though some countries even forgo an age of consent altogether, in favor of a definition like 'before puberty' or even 'before marriage'. To make things even more convoluted, the age limit tends to shrink further, or even disappear entirely, if two people are close to each other in age. In Australia you can still have sexual relations with someone under the age of 16 (but still over the age of 12) if you are yourself not more than two years older then them. Bearing in mind also that, according to recent surveys, 10% of people lose their virginity before they even turn 14, and that the average age by which people have seen pornography is now 11, clearly the laws are struggling to keep up with modern society as well.
The point I'm making is that, despite people arguing that according to 'the experts', no 12 year old is emotionally mature enough to become sexually active, the reality would seem to be that they really have no clue. Clearly, different experts in different countries with different cultures and different legal systems have come to entirely different conclusions.
The system is imperfect, meaning that innocent people are sometimes going to slip through the cracks, as this women did.
As far as Europeans are concerned, American courts legally sanctioning people for having sexual relations just because one party is not yet 18 is not needed protection, but flat-out persecution. Its like banning interracial marriage, or homosexuality, or...marijuana. Its bizarre, its unnecessary, and it shouldn't be happening.
I basically agree. The laws are really very stringent and arbitrary. Its the government playing gods with people's personal behavior, and it shouldn't be happening without sufficient justification. By definition, this has to be a 'lesser of two evils' argument.
At the very least, I'd probably be supportive of lowering the age of consent here in Australia to a more sensible 14, and review penalties for statutory rape below that age range where its quite clear no actual coercion has occurred (i.e. have a court order separating the perpetrator from the victim, rather than throwing one of them in jail straight away).
Ultimately however, this is just a stopgap, and why I talk of her being viewed as a victim in 'a hundred years time'. Because in the next century or so, science will no doubt march on, and society will march with it.
Eventually, I predict, we will come up with better ways to regulate adolescent sexual relations, and to determine whether someone is 'emotionally mature' enough to have sex, than by simply asking how many orbits of the Earth around that sun that person has been around for. People should understand that psychology as a science is still basically sitting in the 19th century. We have only the most primitive, imprecise methods of even judging, let alone maintaining, people's mental health.
Better science and technology means being able to make better choices, and as history shows, allows us to grow increasingly confident condemning the past behaviors of others. Take slavery for instance, an abhorrent crime yes? Well today sure, but one wonders, how else do you really run a pre-industrial, agricultural economy? Surely its either slavery or serfdom? They're aren't really many other choices. In hindsight its an institution we're able to condemn, but at the time one could argue there was no better system in existence, and thus it was the lesser-most evil then available.
Today's age of consent laws will eventually, I firmly believe, be put into much the same category by future historians. We live in a time before we can accurately judge when people are mature enough to start having sex. Thus we have simply drawn a neat line...somewhere, and threatened people with sanctions if they dare cross it in pursuit of sex or love. You know, just those little things which, as far as most of society is concerned, are among the most precious and desirable things one can ever have in life...
As for what superior means of judging people this may be? Well its hard to tell in our time, but no doubt technology to diagnose people with mental conditions will get better, and before long we should be able to, in all seriousness, delve into people's minds and be able to gauge their maturity, or tell whether they are being sincere, with a much greater deal of accuracy. Basically, among other things, I'm talking about mind-reading. Already, as of 2013, the technology to read people's thoughts just by scanning their brains is in its infancy -
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mind-reading-technology-speeds-ahead
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/16/4842418/stanford-mind-reading-research-with-numbers
Be it in 20 years or 50 years, it will be possible, I guarantee you, to hook someone up to a machine and be able to read their thoughts. To see, for instance, if they are lying, perhaps even to read their memories. Already a number of other technologies have revolutionized the way evidence works in our legal system - fingerprints, DNA evidence, handheld video cameras. Such techniques and devices have no doubt cleared the names of millions of people over the years. Wouldn't it be much better to use such technology to judge cases concerning underage sexual relations on a case-by-case basis, rather than drawing such an absurd line in the sand?
So let us then imagine then, how this case would be dealt with in a hundred years time? Upon receiving complaints that a 34 year old was in a sexual relationship with a 12 year old, Ms Letourneau would probably be brought before a court, and offered to have her mind 'read' to see if it hides any guilt at her actions. This would be followed up, if no coercion could be found, by assessing whether her 12 year old partner was emotionally mature enough to be doing such a thing voluntarily. If everything was found to be in order, i.e. that neither partner was coercing the other, and both were judged mature enough to be engaging in such behavior, then they would be released and left in peace.
No arbitrary line in the sand, no locking up of innocent people, and no uninformed witch-hunting of the sort our primitive 20th century society just loves to indulge in. Just science marching on, and dragging society along with it.
Hence, why we shouldn't be so quick to judge, and why I lament that this women was unjustly locked up. She has been a victim of an imperfect system. One we may not yet be able to improve upon, but doubtless will be able to eventually.
Tuesday, 5 November 2013
The Czech Republic >>> Heads Back to the Future >>>
Came across this news article the other week -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/czechrepublic/10404238/Czech-elections-Communists-could-end-up-back-in-power.html
In some of the most deliciously ironic political news seen in years, it appears that the supposedly reviled communist party may soon be back in power in the Czech Republic. The country's legislative elections were held late last month. Due to the appearance of several new parties, the Communist's didn't win quite as big a portion of the vote as was predicted, but they did substantially increase it. The results of the election can be found here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_legislative_election,_2013
And further analysis of the result here -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/czech-republic-elections_b_4209431.html
In summary, their share of the vote increased from about 11% to 15%, putting them in third place. Given the sudden mishmash of political parties, with no fewer than seven winning at least a few percent of the vote, it is unclear which parties will be able to form a coalition government. At the very least however, the news that the communists are in with a shot has made headlines around the world. The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the start of the 1990s had many people assuming that communism as a movement was dead and buried.
The reality is much more complicated. Most European countries still have active communist parties, and many have been governed by only slightly less left-wing socialist parties in recent years. In Bulgaria for instance the most successful post-1991 political party has been the 'Bulgarian Socialist Party' which, it turns out, is the direct successor of the Cold War-era Bulgarian Communist Party. As of 2013 they're not currently in government, but won 26.6% of the vote in the most recent elections, placing them second. Similarly, Hungary's most successful post-1991 party is the 'Hungarian Socialist Party', again a partial successor to Hungary's Cold War-era government.
Even in Russia, the 'Communist Party of the Russian Federation' has won between 11 and 25% of the vote in every election since the fall of the Soviet Union, remaining one of Russia's largest parties. Countries such as Greece, Ukraine and Belarus all have prominent communist parties, by which I mean they consistently win parliamentary seats and significant portions of the vote. Moldova has actually had an elected communist government, which was in power from 2001 to 2009.
My point is, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc did not completely see the end of Communism as a political movement in Europe. The state of politics in most Eastern European countries post-Cold War has basically been a reflection of what's been happening in western Europe ever since the end of WW2. Governments have typically switched back and forth every few years between socialist parties, which are usually the strongest parties individually (France for instance is currently ruled by the Socialists) and a coalition of more right-wing parties. Rarely have the Communists actually been voted into office, but they've persistently lurked on the fringes of the electoral scene, refusing to be vanquished, and occasionally re-emerged to form part of a coalition government with other left-wing parties.
Why am I saying all this, you may ask? My point is simple, it is that we shouldn't be so shocked if one day we wake up and find the following scenario has indeed come back to life -
http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=11391
Our past is still closer than we think. I wouldn't be shocked if in twenty or thirty years we find that much of Europe has again fallen under communist rule, though this time buoyed with the priceless legitimacy the democratic process brings. I make this prediction with mixed feelings. I'm a leftie, I believe that ultimately democratic socialism will prevail over dictatorship and unregulated capitalism, and given that government spending as a percentage of GDP in most western countries is now rising past 40% or more, it would seem that most of the developed world agrees. The fall of the Eastern Bloc saw the global trend towards socialism, prevalent in much of the 20th century, reversed in the region for a few decades. Now however, things seem to be getting back on track. I hope above all else however that politically the region does not revert to authoritarian rule, be it of the one-party-state kind found in the Soviet Union of its satellites, or the US-backed military junta kind seen in Greece and Turkey. Ultimately I suppose I believe in a big government over a small government, but only if its a democratic one. People should be allowed to determine their own future.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/czechrepublic/10404238/Czech-elections-Communists-could-end-up-back-in-power.html
In some of the most deliciously ironic political news seen in years, it appears that the supposedly reviled communist party may soon be back in power in the Czech Republic. The country's legislative elections were held late last month. Due to the appearance of several new parties, the Communist's didn't win quite as big a portion of the vote as was predicted, but they did substantially increase it. The results of the election can be found here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_legislative_election,_2013
And further analysis of the result here -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/czech-republic-elections_b_4209431.html
In summary, their share of the vote increased from about 11% to 15%, putting them in third place. Given the sudden mishmash of political parties, with no fewer than seven winning at least a few percent of the vote, it is unclear which parties will be able to form a coalition government. At the very least however, the news that the communists are in with a shot has made headlines around the world. The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the start of the 1990s had many people assuming that communism as a movement was dead and buried.
The reality is much more complicated. Most European countries still have active communist parties, and many have been governed by only slightly less left-wing socialist parties in recent years. In Bulgaria for instance the most successful post-1991 political party has been the 'Bulgarian Socialist Party' which, it turns out, is the direct successor of the Cold War-era Bulgarian Communist Party. As of 2013 they're not currently in government, but won 26.6% of the vote in the most recent elections, placing them second. Similarly, Hungary's most successful post-1991 party is the 'Hungarian Socialist Party', again a partial successor to Hungary's Cold War-era government.
Even in Russia, the 'Communist Party of the Russian Federation' has won between 11 and 25% of the vote in every election since the fall of the Soviet Union, remaining one of Russia's largest parties. Countries such as Greece, Ukraine and Belarus all have prominent communist parties, by which I mean they consistently win parliamentary seats and significant portions of the vote. Moldova has actually had an elected communist government, which was in power from 2001 to 2009.
My point is, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc did not completely see the end of Communism as a political movement in Europe. The state of politics in most Eastern European countries post-Cold War has basically been a reflection of what's been happening in western Europe ever since the end of WW2. Governments have typically switched back and forth every few years between socialist parties, which are usually the strongest parties individually (France for instance is currently ruled by the Socialists) and a coalition of more right-wing parties. Rarely have the Communists actually been voted into office, but they've persistently lurked on the fringes of the electoral scene, refusing to be vanquished, and occasionally re-emerged to form part of a coalition government with other left-wing parties.
Why am I saying all this, you may ask? My point is simple, it is that we shouldn't be so shocked if one day we wake up and find the following scenario has indeed come back to life -
http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=11391
Our past is still closer than we think. I wouldn't be shocked if in twenty or thirty years we find that much of Europe has again fallen under communist rule, though this time buoyed with the priceless legitimacy the democratic process brings. I make this prediction with mixed feelings. I'm a leftie, I believe that ultimately democratic socialism will prevail over dictatorship and unregulated capitalism, and given that government spending as a percentage of GDP in most western countries is now rising past 40% or more, it would seem that most of the developed world agrees. The fall of the Eastern Bloc saw the global trend towards socialism, prevalent in much of the 20th century, reversed in the region for a few decades. Now however, things seem to be getting back on track. I hope above all else however that politically the region does not revert to authoritarian rule, be it of the one-party-state kind found in the Soviet Union of its satellites, or the US-backed military junta kind seen in Greece and Turkey. Ultimately I suppose I believe in a big government over a small government, but only if its a democratic one. People should be allowed to determine their own future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)