I want to understand Feminism

Why would I? Makes sense to me.

Good, so we are in agreement.

When people who call themselves "feminists" oppose due process rights for college students accused of rape, they are contradicting the "typical" civil rights position (that due process should be ensure for someone accused of a crime).

That was my point.

Thus spake the "scientist." Have you got anything more than anecdotal claims on your part to support your position?

We are in agreement.

I must be missing something here. Who in the world has said that accused rapists are not entitled to equal protection under the law? Is this a stand of some feminists that I've somehow missed in the news reporting? I'm a bit confused by your posts, max.

It is a news story in the US, particularly with college students. Campuses are expelling students (which is a pretty severe penalty) without any type of due process, They are denied exculpatory witnesses and the ability to cross-examine their accuser.

Can you provide some evidence for your claim, including reliable statistics of the incidence and prevalence of such events? When you've done the leg work for that, perhaps you can then provide a reliable source to show that the majority of those who consider themselves to be feminists support such actions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/men-punished-in-sexual-misconduct-cases-on-colleges-campuses-are-fighting-back/2014/08/20/96bb3c6a-1d72-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html

I agree that men on campuses should have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The question I have is why does this come up when discussing feminism. There is nothing in feminism that says men should be treated worse than women although there are plenty of people who claim otherwise. There is also no reason to assume that because some who happen to be feminist are also advocating this position that this is a feminist position. You can find feminist on both sides of the issue. Feminism is about equal status for men and women. Those who want to discredit feminism because they want to protect their privilege use red herrings like this one to tar the movement.

Certainly not me, an old time feminist (equal opportunity, yes.) In my youth, myself and my female cohorts had a hell of a time getting into med schools or law schools. That changed around '65, even sharply changed in those next few years, too late for me, though in my forties I did get into an architecture field (six more years of study, internship). But back in my day, I was one of three in Comparative Anatomy class (doing premed). Some of those beginning classes had 200-250 students, not sure how many in CompAnat, but at least over a hundred. The doors were well shut to admissions to med schools. I don't know law school history as well, but damn well wish I saved the MCAT book on school admission data in 1962 or '63.

I have an architect pal, male, a little younger than my age (72), who on his second marriage (I worked with his first wife, tended to agree with him) who later married a brilliant woman with a doctorate in molecular biology, and at one of our dinners got me to describe the old days to her. He understood, having been close in age and education to me, but more later sixties, and she was some bunch of years younger. There was a giant bias against women going into medicine. They would just quit, you couldn't count on them, it's a waste of the few medical school slots available. And worse.

On the subject, of course: due process. I feel like Max is all anti-all feminists - I gather that he has data of lack of due process, so bring on due process.

I've mixed feelings on the sports thing going on re due process -
we don't know everything to kill a guys career with an accusation. Some stuff is horrible at first glance, or fifth glance.
Some patterns of it all, I haven't lived through (I've never been beaten, yet) but can understand the acceptance that continues the generational line of punishment, and the reasoning, to get the child to shape up and do right. Not everyone read all the articles about not spanking.

I get it the NFL, etc., has rules and that a lot of the rules are for public opinion/image sake or at least mixed with that. It is a business.
Football could be getting less popular by the minute, but it might not be a change, just that now we hear more.

I'm glad (not quite the right word) that we are having these kind of conversations, both about due process and about the apparent acceptance of knocking out your mate.

What is it about feminism as an ideology that means it shouldn't be questioned?

Clearly the reason that issues like due process for rape and restraining order abuse come up when discussing feminism is because these issues are commonly associated with feminism. In both of these cases, famous people are identified with feminism (and who self-identify as feminist) take positions that many of us feel are extreme.

Feminism isn't unique in this. This tends to happens when advocates of an ideology act like they are unquestionable and treat any criticism of their positions as intolerable. It is only natural that people point out the most outrageous of their excesses.

In my opinion Feminism has grossly overreached in several areas. I support them in many areas.

The idea that any ideology is can't be questioned without an extreme (often personal) reaction doesn't sit well with me.

there may be some feminist somewhere who's said something idiotic like that, but it is definitely non-standard

max seems to run with a particularly peculiar set of people who identify themselves as feminists. I've never met any women who would meet his description of feminists.

does that mean they are feminists? would anyone else recognize them as a feminist?

Most of us old time fems don't follow feminist news, much less radical feminist news. We like equal opportunity and want regard as legitimate humans, not secondary help. And a lot of us enjoy loving men (well, some men and quite a bit of us).

I have discussions with a friend on all this (who may or may not post) with whom I've shared and received articles. There is a whole rad fem world out there that the majority of us ordinary fems don't know about but get slammed for being.
It gets annoying.

I do follow some radical feminists (have worked closely with a few).

They may advocate for changes in various laws, but I've never seen anyone say that people shouldn't be able to legally defend themselves against allegations of rape.

________

This all makes me think of the late 1970's when there was a kick to rename feminism to humanism.

It all turns and swings about, generation after generation.

I think sometimes people view feminism as chauvinism....two different animals

right? But-- I repeat feminism is not about inequality, not about gaining an unfair advantage..... There are radical crazies in any group---But--they don't define the group.

Quoting Max -
Clearly the reason that issues like due process for rape and restraining order abuse come up when discussing feminism is because these issues are commonly associated with feminism. In both of these cases, famous people are identified with feminism (and who self-identify as feminist) take positions that many of us feel are extreme.

Oh, wait, all loud feminists represent the majority of others?

Another issue is restraining order abuse. Here in Massachusetts a man who is accused of domestic violence is guilty until proven innocent. He only has a bench trial with no real chance of appeal with judges who are pressured to rule for the accuser. A judge friend of mine estimates that one third of restraining orders granted are "baseless", and yet judges don't dare to rule that way.

A simple way to make this process more fair is to give penalties to women who perjure themselves. That means that if a woman lies under oath to falsely accuse someone of violence, and this is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there will be penalties. This would make the system significantly more fair.

Even a simple reform like this is not only politically unfeasible, it is not even discussed. Any one who dares to promote this reform in any public way is vilified. (And I challenge you to find me a self-identified feminist in public life who isn't lock-step in opposition to restraining order reform).

When an ideology becomes so entrenched that it is unquestionable, it leads to bad policy.

Bromides like "feminism is not about inequality" don't change the fact that the political realities caused by this ideology in fact do create unequal treatment in several cases.

I don't want to do away with feminism (again in many issues I agree with feminism). I do want to do away with the idea that the ideology is sacred and unquestionable. This is not just a theoretical issue.

The ideology is making public discussion impossible and leading to illogical public policy.

I've only slightly read the rads, some argument among them in an article I ran across about transwomen being let in to their conference, and that's another world, an academic spat ..

You'd be surprised how many famous academic or literary feminists I've never read at length. I read some articles and book reviews. I'm just me and don't ******* (Fuking? try the fried oysters) try to assume what I think, or what the rest of us think.

Why do you equate "feminism" with restraining order abuse? They are in no way connected other than both involve interactions between men and women.