This article talks about the first female elected president of Iceland, talking about the worrisome nature of extreme feminism. Although she doesn't name names, this is the kind of thing that has got here worried

Another thing I believe could be the reason for thinking that the feminist movement is too extremist are recent comments made by Ms. Gudrun Jonsdottir, a spokeswoman of one of the most prominent and best funded feminist organization in Iceland, Stigamot. Only a few months back, she publicly spoke favorably towards diminishing the human rights of men only. This she did by claiming that the ideology of assuming a man innocent until proven guilty is outdated in light of feminist research and therefore indicated that this cornerstone of the Icelandic justice system should be abolished. This right of people, that are accused of crimes, is clearly stated in the Icelandic constitution, The European human rights treaty and the United Nations human rights treaty and thus is not just a mere ideology.

Gudrun’s words are not an isolated incident. Other feminists have spoken favorably about reversing the burden of proof in crimes that are committed against women and the NoF cheerfully shared her words on their official Facebook page later to become the most popular record on that page ever, measured in shares and likes. One could have expected that the state funded Center for Gender Equality would utter a sound in protest to such blatantly male discriminating views but nothing has still been heard. Reaffirming the belief of many, that the Center for Gender Equality is actually a Center for Women rights only and not the least bit concerned with men’s rights.

Gudrun’s organization, Stigamot, are almost entirely funded with taxpayers money and to this date, her words seem not to have worried the Icelandic government even though Iceland is part of international treaties that explicitly state that being assumed innocent until proven guilty, should be the cornerstone of a nations justice system if it is to be considered in favor of human rights.

I would have dismissed this incident as an example of the raging left, were it not for the fact that the CGE has said nothing. Isn't this a fairly clear example of feminism going too far.

Views: 725

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The raging left? Seriously, you're going to be that guy now? It's not like whenever I hear some racist shit I blame it on the raging right.

I try googling this [very quickly] and found nothing else one it. I have a history of being really bad at googling though because of my tiny child brain that doesn't make simple logic work so maybe a more reputable site has referenced this somewhere. I don't know.

Anyways, yeah, sexism sucks which-ever-way.

The raging left? Seriously, you're going to be that guy now? It's not like whenever I hear some racist shit I blame it on the raging right.

Well I get rather concerned when it comes from a state funded institution. Perhaps I should clarify my meaning. I meant that normally, I would just chalk this kind of absurditiy up to extremists and think "Well extremists will think all kinds of crazy things, but they can't do very much except think it, so it's not important". Except that in this case, this is a state funded institution that is really very popular in Iceland, and the fact is that no one has come out against this person, saying how absurd it is. The fact that this kind of view is popular is rather concerning, and the fact that its coming from a state funded body even scarier.

Don't worry dude nothing will happen.  If something does happen and WW3 breaks out who will be crying for the men then?  The men in Iceland are probably doing what men do when their wives nag them all the time, turn a def ear and say yes dear haha.  

Thank you for saying that. I agree completely.

This article makes the careful separation of "feminism" and "extreme feminism."
Just as there is a distinction between Universalism Christianity, Catholicism, Christian Scientists and the West Borough Baptist Church.
I wouldn't be silly enough to use W.B.'s message or methods as representative of Christianity anywhere else. They are part of the global christian community as much as any other church - they are not a group from which to make a useful generalization about Christianity.

You won't catch me posting about the children who died of treatable illness under the vigil of a Christian Scientist, then accuse all Christians of playing some part in it and demanding that they defend themselves for it.
Because that would be silly.

That being said, I can find nothing about Gudrun Jonsdottir other than a passive mention of her in an article about the ban of strip clubs in Iceland. (Which I have mixed feelings about.)
I also cannot read much of what is written about this issue because I cannot find it in english.

As for reversing the burden of proof - this is tricky.
Currently, rape cases are dismissed too easily. Repeat offenders continue to walk free while their victims are told to do a better job of not-getting-raped. Currently, "walking together to the same dorm room" is considered "consent to sex" and nothing that follows is considered "rape" regardless of the "no's" the women may shout, utter or wimper. Currently, clothing and makeup is consent to sex and women who are too provocative are not considered "rape victims." It is usually, but not always, men who are the attacker. And, in a society that accepts non-verbal signals as "consent to sex", it is difficult for truly guilty men to be convicted for their attack and truly innocent men to defend themselves, should accusations be taken more seriously.
I do believe that rape-victims deserve more. And that rape culture (that rape isn't serious; that it is funny, and sexual assault and humor have no defined lines, and only stupid sluts get raped) is a huge problem.
Personally, I believe the solution (or the best solution, rather) lies in more sex-positive education. Sex isn't a mind game that comes with "nonverbal consent" and "universal signals". It is an agreement between two individuals with well communicated terms and respected boundaries. This removes any accepted notion that a victim "was asking for it" or "should have expected to" have sex. This prevents men from unwittingly pushing himself onto a reluctant woman who never learned who to say no. (yes, it happens. And no, it doesn't make sense to me. But yes, it is real.)

It would seem, Iceland is attempting to create a whole new justice system for sex crimes committed only by one gender.
I do wish to see sex offenders given less leniency...but I do not agree that this is the way to go about it. (Provided these statements are made in context, the laws are specifically designed to demote men's rights and that the language used to shape these laws actually punishes men as a gender.)

This article makes the careful separation of "feminism" and "extreme feminism."

Yes, but the point is though that extreme feminists should be criticised by the more moderate ones. This is not happening in Iceland. The government has not criticised them, and the organisation in question is partially state funded. This is why I am concerned. IE that extreme feminism is being accepted as mainstream. 

Currently, "walking together to the same dorm room" is considered "consent to sex" and nothing that follows is considered "rape" regardless of the "no's" the women may shout, utter or wimper.

Unless you can provide a specific case to back this up, I'm calling foul.

Currently, clothing and makeup is consent to sex and women who are too provocative are not considered "rape victims."

Again, please provide proof. This may be a popular held opinion, but as far as I know, there is no jurisprudence for it.

I do wish to see sex offenders given less leniency...but I do not agree that this is the way to go about it. 

With respect, none of the issues you have brought up are the reasoning behind low rape prosecution rates. There is one main reason you have missed out, that is NEVER going to change, or at the very least should never change. Burden of proof. Because rape cases generally have either very little or no physical evidence, and a relatively small number of witnesses (in most cases, the accused and the victim) then presumption of innocence means that the jury has no choice but to let the accused go, because they cannot, without reasonable doubt, accept the guilt of the person involved. It is the accused's word against the victims, and with presumption of innocence, they must go with the accused. This is how it should remain. Attacking presumption of innocence is very dangerous.

Currently, "walking together to the same dorm room" is considered "consent to sex" and nothing that follows is considered "rape" regardless of the "no's" the women may shout, utter or wimper.

Unless you can provide a specific case to back this up, I'm calling foul.

The "nonverbal consent to sex" is so often used against women in cases of rape that some colleges (where acquitance rape is makes up the majority of rape cases) have gone to the trouble of spelling it out.

Here is a rapist who was let go because his victim was "sending signals."

A convicted rapist will not go to jail because a Manitoba judge says the victim sent signals that "sex was in the air" through her suggestive attire and flirtatious conduct on the night of the attack.

In such a case, it is believable that a dimwitted person would rely on drunken flirtation as an invitation. Even if I may believe this man did not understand that he was raping a woman...but he still raped her all the same. In a culture that accepts "nonverbal consent", we are making it difficult to prevent unwitting rape and convict rapists.
This is a brief article from, my city. I cannot find the articles just now but, in the early 2000's we has a huge scandal in the police department as the rape unit was openly referred to as "The Lying Bitches" unit and dozens of women, ranging from prostitutes to college students, were dismissed by police upon reporting rape. One student was told she shouldn't have gone to her classmate's dorm alone. Another young girl, raped in Olde City - a popular college-bar area of the city, had her report dismissed because she was wearing a miniskirt. Other such reports were deemed "unfounded" due to the "behavior" of the victim.
In PA, my home state, three men successfully appealed their conviction as the judge did not believe a female would invite three men into her dorm without intentions to have sex. Even though the victim had injuries they "weren't serious". Even though the victim rejected initial contact, she was did not put up a fight. Therefore, it is not reasonable that she was raped.

You can explore this case yourself, I am personally too sickened by it.
An 11 year old was gang raped and her provocative clothing is used against her.
There is a bit of national controversy over whether or not she should be considered a victim.

Okay then, so I agree that police procedure in the US clearly needs work, to put it mildly. However, I should point out that in the case of the 11 year old, the courts it seems have not said anything about her clothes, but rather it is opinion outside. Certainly, I've not heard anything like this coming out of the UK. 

11 year olds are too young for sex.  Full stop.

It's one of those cases, where (unless the perp is another 11 year old) there is no gray area.

That people choose to fumble over pointless humiliating details in a case like that is a sign to me that the society in question lacks maturity in dealing with such a serious matter, and I hope to goodness that the child was shielded from that horror, because it's bad enough being raped in the first place.

You took so many of the words right out of my mouth. Of course, I don't believe that the burden of proof should be reversed for rape cases (and I highly doubt that this would ever come about), but you make very good points as to how rape cases are tried. To me it seems to be not so much a legal change that should come about, but a social one. 

I think the main change should be, as you mentioned, encouraging the idea of enthusiastic consent. There's a prevailing cultural narrative that nice girls don't enjoy sex, or that they should at least "give" it reluctantly, and certainly should never seek it out. This is what's mainly responsible for a lot of so-called "grey rapes." WE need to teach young men and women that consent should be clear and that one should always respect their partners and their boundaries. 

I'm a bit troubled by the idea of "enthusiastic consent," myself.  Maybe this is just cynicism after many years in a long-term relationship.  But, you don't always consent to sex enthusiastically.  And, that's okay.  You might be kind of tired, and would rather read a book, but agree to have sex anyway because your partner wants to.  Your partner is not a rapist.  You might really want sex, but your partner is tired and would rather play a video game, so you try to seduce them into it, and they relent.  You are not a rapist. 

Rape is about not being given a choice.  Full stop.  It's not about making bad choices, it's not about having somebody changing your mind about your choice, it's not even about feeling pressured into making a different choice (as long as the pressure isn't so strong as to take away your choice).  A guy who uses high-pressure tactics to try to get a woman to sleep with him is probably a sleazy douchebag best avoided, but he's not a rapist.  A man who forces a women to sleep with him against her will is a rapist.

And I do think that, among a certain faction of feminists--who seem particularly prevalent online--this is a problem, and they want to see any sex that isn't independently and enthusiastically chosen as rape.  That's dangerous.  It's dangerous to believe that, if your boyfriend guilts you into have sex with him, he's a rapist.  Unless he forced you, he's not, and it's taking away women's agency to claim otherwise.  Sometimes people make bad choices about sex, and sometimes they regret those bad choices.  I wish they didn't, but some women do seem to want redefine those regretted choices as rape.  When that happens, the real pain of real rape victims--who had their choice taken away from them by either violent force or threat of violent force--gets lost.  Yeah, it sucks if some guy tells you that, if you don't sleep with him, he'll leave you.  He's an asshole and you are better off without him.  But, if you agree and sleep with him, he didn't rape you.  You just made the choice to sleep with an asshole, and, yeah, you'll probably regret it down the road.  

I don't think this is all that common, though.  There has always been a strain of feminism that has been very suspicious of sex.  There were a few radical feminists in the 70s and 80s who felt that all heterosexual sex was rape.  We've kind of dropped that idea, but I think we see remnants of it.  Today, there seems to be a small contingent of "sex-positive" feminists, particularly on the internet, who think that either sex is awesome, empowering, and enthusiastically consented to, or it's rape.  Again, I think that's a dangerous position to take.

I'm a feminist.  I think it's absurd to argue that the actions of any individual woman or group of women who identify as feminists represents the group as a whole.  I also think the views of this particular woman were misrepresented.  At the same time, though, I do think there's a troubling movement among some feminists to define rape in an overly broad way, and to start defining bad choices or choices made in an environment where any pressure was applied--no matter how minimal and regardless of whether the woman was still free to say no--as rape.  Women are agents, and as such can make choices.  Just because a guy is trying to pressure you into sex, doesn't mean you have to cave.  As long as he doesn't actually take that choice away from you, by either using physical force or the threat of it,then he's not a rapist, just a jerk.  Sex reluctantly agreed to isn't rape, and it shouldn't be viewed as such.

Re: enthusiastic consent, I think that counts! It's not so much explicitly verbally agreeing to sex. It's more obvious enjoyment and participation as opposed to just laying back and thinking of England. 

It's not about encouraging girls who had the latter kind of sex to feel like they were raped either, or to make more men into rapists, it's more about emphasizing the sexual agency of everyone, especially women. It may not turn them into rapists, but I think if men, especially young men, don't really expect women to enjoy sex all that much, it makes rape seem less heinous to them, contributing to rape culture.  


Youtube Links!

Here are some YT links to channels related to Nerdfighteria and educational content!

*Can you think of any more? Pass along any suggestions to an Admin who will then add it to this list should it fit!

© 2015   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service