Well, as with most transformative movements the approach is often to aim super high and adjust the method bit by bit through gradual reform and see how it goes. I think the aim of prison abolition is good - whether we actually end up at complete zero prisons at all after pursuing that ideal as far as it goes is an unknown, but I think it's probably worth seeing how far we can go in that direction in the meantime.
And yeah, misnomers are pretty common on the whole. Like "dictatorship of the proletariat" is pretty much inherently democratic, but you wouldn't think that just by looking at it. Likewise, prison abolition certainly has the aim of abolishing the prison system as it exists now (rather than reforming it to be more humane), whether that ends up in the abolition of all instances of locking up bad guys in cages from now until forevermore is... kinda moot. IMO
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."Sexual abuse of inmates at N.J. women’s prison is an ‘open secret,’ federal inquiry finds
.
Warning for mentioning of gendered slurs.
New York Attorney General's 'Weinstein Unit' Reportedly Investigating Cover-Up at NBC
15 Women Accuse Former Employees of Washington's NFL Team of Sexual Misconduct, Verbal Abuse
Actress Rose Mc Gowan unleashed her wrath on the Times Up movement - the campaign that was founded two years ago to combat sexual harassment in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal - as well as the activists involved in it on Wednesday, December 2, calling it a "vile PR stunt".
"FRAUD ALERT! @Times Up A vile PR stunt, a front for evil CAA & other human traffickers like Weinstein. SHAME ON YOU. SHAME. And shame on the actresses involved in this lie. #sdkknickerbocker #anitadunn," she wrote in a tweet, tagging Democratic public relations powerhouse SKD Knickerbocker, which represents the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, and SKDK executive Anita Dunn, who was a leading adviser on Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.
Rose Mc Gowan made the comments on Wednesday in reaction to a recent report that Time’s Up splurged big on executive salaries while spending relatively little on its set target of helping victims of sexual misconduct. We previously reported that tax filings show that the organization, which was founded by Hollywood celebrities and consists of Time's Up Foundation and Time's Up Now Inc., raised $3,670,219 in 2018 in its first year of operation.
Less than 10% was spent on helping survivors of sexual harassment. Filings show $312,001 was spent on the legal defense fund while $1,407,032 was spent on salaries. More than $157,000 was spent on conferences at luxury resorts, and a further $58,395 was spent on travel. The organization had brought in the elite Hollywood stars during the early days of its operation with Reese Witherspoon, Amy Schumer and Brie Larson holding positions on its board.
Excessive amounts were spent on salaries instead of legal support. Lisa Borders was recruited to head Time's Up, but remained at the organization for only four months, after her 36-year-old son was accused of sexual misconduct. Yet, the CEO managed to pull in $342,308 for her salary. The chief marketing officer, Rachel Terrace, drew a salary of $295,000 for her efforts during the organization's first year. Treasurer Rebecca Goldman drew a salary of $255,327.
She also revealed in another tweet that Time’s Up agreed to fund her lawsuit against her “torturers”, but she is declining the offer. “I am formally refusing their offer of financial help. Tomorrow I’m tearing up the contract,” she wrote. “My current lawyers won’t rep me without $$$$, but feeling clean is better.” The actress said Harvey Weinstein raped her at the Sundance Film Festival in 1997 and Alexander Payne sexually assaulted her when she was 15.
It seems like Switzerland has reopened the debate about expanding the definition of rape to cover non-violent instances
after the preceding attempt was derailed by COVID-19.
Hitherto rape and its gender neutral analogue sexual coercion - Art. 190 1 and 2 - only applies with sex forced with violence, threats or incapacitation
. Now the idea is to require consent for every sex act rather than assuming it. If my understanding serves, other countries do the same thing.
Biden Administration to codify Roe v Wade
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% ScandinavianUntil SCOTUS overturns it. Remember, the whole reason why anti-abortion groups vote for Republicans is because Republicans appoint judges that aren't sympathetic to Roe vs. Wade and Trump & Evil Turtle made a huge headway in that regard.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanSo that they retain a level of independence from the rest of government. Once a SCOTUS judge is appointed, the only way to remove them is by impeachment, which means the justices don't need to worry about remaining popular enough to win elections or be reappointed. The idea is that this allows them to make legally correct but unpopular or politically inconvenient rulings.
Edited by NativeJovian on Jan 24th 2021 at 6:48:02 AM
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.SCOTUS is meant to be the interpreter of the law and the constitution, unaffected by whatever the politics of the day are and instead sticking to just the law and what it says.
If you don't like their rulings and interpretations then get Congress to write a new law that fixes the original problem.
Oh really when?Heh, this talk of law and women reminds me.
I'm working on a story that is set in the early 20th century and one of the main characters is a highly educated female lawyer/legal columnist. I initially had her graduate from Princeton and then Harvard Law School, but then I learned that pretty much none of the Ivy League schools, undergraduate or graduate, accepted women until in the 1960s (with some very rare exceptions that were more of administrative errors), with an exception of Cornell. So I had to change it to Cornell -> New York University.
I also remember seeing a legal meme review video by Legal Eagle, where he points out how even to this very day some female lawyers are mistaken as a reporter/scribes/etc.
I was like, goddamn.
Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.Hillary Clinton has talked in the past about what it was like to be a female law student in the 1960s-70s. It is online somewhere. It might be worth a read if you can find it. I think she graduated from Yale in 1973-ish.
Something I've also noticed being talked about on social media, especially during the pandemic, is the experiences of young lawyers in Britain, especially barristers, who are from the BAME community. It's disproportionately happening to the women. They're turning up at court as the defence or prosecuting legal expert, only to have people telling them off for/being escorted away from being in parts of the building the public aren't allowed in, or being treated like they're cleaning staff or administrative clerks.
Basically, as soon people who work in the building see a young, black woman they're assuming she can't possibly be a barrister or a legal expert of any kind. This is happening to white women and some black men as well, but it's disproportionately happening to black women, even ones who have been working in the field for over a decade. The pandemic seems to have been a trigger for more women to start speaking out about this issue. It's disturbingly common.
One of the other triggers for them speaking out is because they're also struggling with maternity issues. There's no give in the system for female barristers to have a family, while plenty for men. It's not as simple as being about having parental leave (which is permissible), it's the idea that there's a sustained biological impact on women during and after pregnancy that 'parental leave' just doesn't cover, and it can really mess up cases that have taken months or even years to get that court date because of the lack of flexibility.
It's partially because our government has run down the court funding until the judiciary is basically close to collapse. That's a political issue, but it's disproportionately affecting female barristers because the whole thing is structured around it being a man's world (and even the male barristers are struggling to cope in the current state). And, no matter how equal people want to be in society, there are some biological issues that female barristers are finding the system is incapable of accommodating in its current form.
Edited by Wyldchyld on Jan 25th 2021 at 12:48:28 PM
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.Another question for a story, the one mentioned above.
First, here's the context. The story takes place in America, from the 1900s to the 1940s. The female lead of the story, Serena E. Stayton (a fictional daughter of a real-life figure William Stayton
), is a woman with a big brain and even bigger ambition. She wants to become the first congresswoman in her home state, New York, and joins the National American Woman Suffrage Association in 1903, at age 13.
As a junior member of the NAWSA, she writes several articles for it after school. Then in the same year, she hears from her father, a lawyer and a former naval officer, about the San Francisco-born main character Dale Lee, the very first Asian-American to enter the US Naval Academy. At this, she takes an interest in him because she knows Annapolis is an extremely conservative place (in real-life history, Annapolis didn't have a single non-white graduate until the 1920s, while West Point already had a black officer in the 1870s).
So when she visits Baltimore in 1904, she contacts and invites him (a second-year cadet by then) to an interview, to mostly ask questions about how he managed to overcome such a tremendous barrier and see if any of it can be applied to her organization's goal. In the process, Lee is proved to be quite a feminist (thanks to the teachings of his mentor/godfather, Bradford Leavitt
) and they become close allies.
Now, here are two questions.
First, how plausible is a very young woman being accepted to NAWSA or any other major feminist organizations?
Second, in the early 20th century, how compatible would movements for gender equality and racial equality have been? Would two of them could've (or did) work together or were there some exclusion?
Edited by dRoy on Feb 6th 2021 at 11:48:44 PM
Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.I came here to ask this question. People say we don't need feminism because we already give them equality and rights a few years ago. However, some say there is still discrimination towards women in less obvious areas. This sentiment is felt throughout the internet with a few videos dissing feminism by using the 'woke' twitter crowd as proof.
Why do people have this belief that we solved women's rights decades ago when there are still cases of discrimination in some unnoticeable parts of society?
Crazy stupid in battle. Crazy cupid on a nice date.I mean, you kind of just answered your own question there: unnoticeable.
If you're a man (or a very lucky woman), a lot of the problems many women have are totally invisible because you never have to deal with them, or are really encouraged to consider what a woman's perspective might be like in regards to the things society wants and expects them to do. In fact for a long time the message that was given to men was that women were fundamentally different, almost ethereal beings that weren't possible for men to really understand ("men are from mars, women are from venus").
When you grow up under that perspective, it's really easy to dismiss subtler (or a lot of the time even overt) inequalities because you have no real frame of reference to draw on for what their experiences might be like. And for men specifically many of them have a vested interest in not believing them because it makes them uncomfortable to think that they have some kind of responsibility for these things happening to them, whether passively or actively, or that they might have to change their behavior or reconsider some of the things they were taught.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Feb 6th 2021 at 12:29:53 PM
x3 They don't. They think women have too much as it is, so let's convince everyone women have enough.
And we don't have equality, in the US at least. Not even only in unnoticeable areas. We don't have equality in super obvious areas. We don't have equal rights in the Constitution, what rights we have are situational depending on the state of our body, we don't have wage parity, we don't get researched as much in medical trials, our bodies aren't a factor in safety standards, etc etc. Not even taking into account how women are punished economically for having kids.
Edited by Bur on Feb 6th 2021 at 9:34:17 AM
I basically believed that - that we already had gender equality so feminism was rather redundant - until midway through my undergrad degree.
The reason was simple: I’d never experienced sexism, or at least nothing I perceived as it. I had the same rights as men, the same ability to study the same subjects and work the same jobs; I’d never been sexually harassed or been afraid because of my gender; I’d never been catcalled; I’d never been discriminated against in school or work. (I didn’t think about attitudes towards sexuality in terms of sexism because I believed - and essentially still do - in abstinence until marriage for both men and women.) As far as my personal experience went, institutional or societal-level sexism might as well have been nonexistent.
I was aware of sexist attitudes in history. I was aware of sexist attitudes in writing. I was aware of sexism in an international context. But I didn’t think of it as something affecting my 21st-century life.
It was only gradually that I became aware that my experience was extremely atypical.
(For reference: I’m an upper-middle-class white woman in Canada.)
Edited by Galadriel on Feb 6th 2021 at 11:49:21 AM

Systematic change can only prevent so much in the way of individual crimes. Even in a completely gender, race, and class-equal society that teaches absolute nonviolence there's always going to be individuals who feel the need to abuse and harm their partners repeatedly because humans are not rational beings nor can their behavior be controlled to the absolute without imposing some kind of authoritarian nightmare. People who are prone to crimes of passion or impulse will always exist.
There will always be a need to confine at least some percentage of the populace to prevent them from hurting those around them, however (hopefully) miniscule, because a fully crimeless society that is also free and humane is impossible. Unless the values of this new equal society have shifted enough that repeat offenders are considered so deviant from the norm that it's better to just execute them and be done with it. Thus it's better characterized as prison minimization rather than abolition.
Edited by AlleyOop on Mar 16th 2020 at 1:51:03 PM