Somebody Else's What?

“The Somebody Else's Problem field is much simpler and more effective, and what's more can be run for over a hundred years on a single torch battery. This is because it relies on people's natural disposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain.”

― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything

In the process of gender issues debate, we're regularly presented with examples of female hypoagency, but this is mind boggling. It's one thing to treat inconvenient conditions as prohibitive, and choices made based on them as forced, using exaggeration for the sake of excuse. It's another to simply ignore a woman's agency without even attributing behavior to another cause, as the jurors in the Jodi Arias sentencing trial have done.

 Jury foreman says life or death decision unfair

"You heard (prosecutor Juan) Martinez say she was only 27. ... She's old enough that she should have known better," Zervakos said. "I didn't look at it that way. I'm looking at 27 years of an absolutely normal everyday young woman that was living a life that was perfectly normal. Then something changed the trajectory of her life after meeting Travis Alexander, and it spiraled downhill from there."             

So there's this mysterious, invisible outside force that changed the trajectory of her life. Doesn't that just totally make it sound like she was careening along, not due to any control on her part, and out of nowhere, through no fault or intent of her own, BAM! There she was, heading off to find a knife and a gun! And the jury can't make up its mind, because either way, this poor, innocent murderer's life will be ruined by their decision. 

It wasn't just that they were unwilling to impose the death penalty, as would likely happen were they hearing the case of Joe Arias, 27 year old man who murdered his wife. It was that they couldn't even settle on the lesser penalty of life in prison.

Zervakos described a deliberations room full of tears and spinning moral compasses as each juror struggled to come to grips with their own beliefs about what factors — including Arias' young age at the time of the killing and her lack of criminal history — should cause them to show mercy and spare her life.

Age and history notwithstanding, if Jodie were a Joe instead, given otherwise identical circumstances, and an otherwise identical defense, he'd be sitting on death row praying his appeals would stave off his execution for a few more years. While I'm against the death penalty (not just for this case because of her age, her lack of criminal history, or her gender, but overall, because I oppose affording that power to a system which wrongfully convicts as easily and often as the U.S. court system does) I have no problem acknowledging that stark disparity in societal response.

I'd ask, why is that? Why is it that society can respond to male criminal acts by holding the perpetrator accountable for his actions, but treats female criminal behavior as if it has been inflicted on the perpetrator instead of the victim? But it's not like those questions haven't already been answered. Society excuses female crime by attributing a lack of agency, blaming history, environment, relationships, illness, duress... anything but the criminal herself. It's as if hypoagency runs on the same mechanism that drives Douglas Adams's Somebody Else's Problem field, only when employed for the protection of women, it makes everything appear to be Somebody Else's Fault. That seems to be the main force that kept this jury from even being able to decide to sentence the perpetrator of a violent and brutal murder to life in prison for the commission of that crime.  
   

Zervakos declined to discuss his thoughts or those of other jurors on whether Arias should have been sentenced to death or life. But he said he was torn between her two personas: a killer and an average young woman struggling through life.

Arias - an average young killer, struggling through life. What a hard situation to face. Does that make Travis Alexander a lucky man, because his struggles are over, or can we admit that the alleged suffering of Jodie Arias is disproportionately minor in comparison to that which she inflicted on her victim?

Female hypoagency is contagious. Rather than deal with the fact that Arias slit her victim's throat from ear to ear, stabbed him 27 times in the neck and back, and shot him, the jury has focused on the fact that she is young. Rather than deal with how her manipulation of evidence and her getaway plan indicate premeditation, the jury focused on her appearance of normalcy. Rather than determine a penalty for the brutal murderer of a young man, whose life was not just ruined by her actions, but violently and painfully taken from him, the jury has decided they just couldn't face deciding the fate of this woman. Their aversion to facing that which they did not want to see, weren't expecting, and couldn't explain - the brutality of a young, "normal" looking woman against a strong, capable man, led them to place judge Sherry Stephens in the position of having to declare a mistrial. This raises the possibility that the penalty phase of the trial may have to be repeated, putting the victim's family through the pain of once again reliving their grief.

Jodie Arias was convicted of a heinous crime, the shockingly violent murder of Travis Alexander. The same jury who determined that she deliberately committed that murder has now decided that holding her accountable for her actions is just too hard. They cannot imagine that such a seemingly normal young woman could do such a savage thing on her own. How could these individuals, who were so convinced by the evidence in this case that they were able to hand down a guilty verdict be so unwilling to look at that same evidence as the determining factors in their decision in the penalty phase of her trial? In their concern over the future of Jodie Arias, did they forget about their responsibility to Travis Alexander... or did they simply decide that, since the actions of Jodie Arias were not her fault, the right of Travis Alexander to a just outcome could be considered somebody else's problem?

VAWA and stalking

Here's an example of one of the fundamental flaws in the current incarnation of VAWA: broad terms which encompass more than violence in their definitions. In its provisions on stalking, the bill treats upsetting someone as an act of violence... even when it occurs online, with no limit as to how and where this stipulation may apply.

Text from stalking section as listed on LLI, since Congress's THOMAS system doesn't work
(I've made pertinent segments bold for emphasis.)

Sec. 2261A. Stalking

Whoever--

(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or is present within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel or presence engages in conduct that--

(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--

(i) that person;
(ii) an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person; or
(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A); or

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that--

(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A); or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A), shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.'.

(c) Interstate Violation of Protection Order- Section 2262(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 'is present' after 'Indian Country or'.

Looking up the legal definition of harassment (unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim) will tell you that to be meet that definition, an individual claiming to be a victim merely has to establish that 1) the accuser objected to the behavior, 2) the accused didn't stop.

U.S. Legal's definition of Intimidation states

Intimidation means to make fearful or to put into fear. Generally, proof of actual fear is not required in order to establish intimidation. It may be inferred from conduct, words, or circumstances reasonably calculated to produce fear.

Because subsection (2) of section 2261A. (stalking) includes when this behavior occurs via electronic communication - specifically any interactive computer service or electronic communication service, the complainant doesn't even have to establish that the accused sought her out. Under this definition, any discussion in any forum under any circumstances would qualify as an environment in which a person engaging in interpersonal communication could be accused of stalking. In fact, screenshots may fall under this category, as well, if the individual whose post is being recorded and posted objects, even if the original posts were publicly visible.

We have seen how lightly and easily the violence against women act has been abused in the past.

Sit back for a moment, and think about this: This text essentially makes any discussion online potential fodder for a legal accusation. Abuse of this section of the law will be easy to commit, and difficult to combat. How do you prove that you didn't intend to offend someone you were arguing with? How do you determine for the court how your opponent should feel about your replies in a debate?

How long do you think it will take for opponents of the MRM to start using this as a tool for stifling debate where gender issues are discussed? Is code orange about to grow some teeth?

Yet another deceptive feminist marketing attempt?

I'm seeing the same pattern repeatedly presented in recent debate; two expansions on the NAFALT (Not All Feminists Are Like That) argument. One, I'm labeling NAFALT so FINTB (Feminism Is Not That Bad) and the other, an old one; I Am Not A Feminist but NAFALT often followed by some variation of "so MRAs should stop criticizing the feminist movement."

IANAF but NAFALT is normally easy to cut off by addressing the disparity in its logic: Regardless of whether all feminists are advocates for legislation and policy which mandates human rights violations against men, those feminists who have influence and power are. Active feminists whose advocacy is having real-world effects are like that.    
   
The causes of several men's issues are rooted in the activism of those feminists. Attempts to address those issues will necessarily include discussion of their causes and resistance to the feminist advocacy which led to those factors. This makes criticism of feminist anti-male rhetoric and response to feminist activism an inevitable part of the discussion of men's issues. This assertion, combined with evidence of said activism, usually ends the "quit criticizing" debate. However, recent IANAF but NAFALT debaters have taken the road of the NAFALT so FINTB debater.

NAFALT so FINTB is a slightly greasier group. The argument sounds nice, but is based on faulty logic. The existence of some decency within an oppressive group does not erase or excuse its oppressive nature, actions, or effects. Neither does the choice of some who claim decency to associate their claims with the group's name, no matter how badly they want to clean up its public image. Because the logic NAFALT so FINTB is faulty and so easily debunked, but the debaters asserting it are emotionally invested in wearing or defending the "feminist" label and associating that label with the Disney version they've made up for themselves, debate following it takes a wandering path through old and new territory, ending at a point of dissatisfaction for the FINTB debater, who then either abandons the conversation, or takes an unearned tone of snide and arrogant superiority.

The main method I've seen employed among this type of debater is topic hopping. The debater states an assertion. The assertion is countered with an argument. The debater supports the assertion with additional opinion, unsupported rhetoric, an appeal to emotion, or some other logical fallacy. Evidence is presented for the counterargument. The debater ignores this and states a new assertion. Pattern established.   

Another is shaming. FINTB debaters equate feminism with being female and call criticism of feminism sexist. When that is countered, they equate it with women's rights, and call countering feminist advocacy an attack on them. That argument depends on begging the difference - the acceptance that each item on the feminist agenda represents a right, the advocacy for which is supported by all women, rather than just a concession feminists want made for the segment among women who want it. Countering the argument depends upon countering that assumption. The response to that is usually label-tossing (misogynist, rape-apologist, anti-woman, anti-choice, creep) and other sexism shaming. This could be taken through to a discussion on whether the feminist movement has the right to claim proprietary ownership of the desires, goals, philosophy, and ethics of all women... but FINTB debaters don't seem to be sophisticated enough to get past "If You Disagree With Feminism You Hate Women."  

The initial presentation starts with NAFALT, so FINTB. When presented with discussion explaining why NAFALT is not a valid argument (backed up as needed,) the debater goes on to the Waves argument, which essentially boils down to "because it's currently popular to treat the history of feminism as having included 3 separate, date-specific waves... NAFALT so FINTB."

This is countered by evidence that each wave of feminism was, in fact, Like That in various ways, and that the most recent one has demonstrated its Like That nature... recently. The debater's response is often to change the debate stance at this point from NAFALT to I Am Not Like That, with "I only identify with/believe in/support 'nice' feminism, so FINTB." IANLT so FINTB may continue through various points and counter-points on whether claiming association with a group makes one part of that group, whether the nature of a group is defined by what it does or what it claims to do, and whether the nature of a group is defined by its interaction with society, its history, and its rhetoric, or by the assertions of those who wish to see it in a positive light.

In debates where I've been engaged by one of these FINTB debaters, this is generally accompanied by either denial that I stated parts of previous statements I made, denial that outspoken and movement-shaping feminist leaders are leaders of the moment, denial that the movement's real-world actions and advocacy are what the movement is about, (both of which fall into That Is Not My Feminism... so FINTB) and the application of vague but authoritative sounding labels like "controversial" and "disputed" to presented evidence, without the presentation of counter-evidence or any other reason why those labels apply.
I call this "the emphatic 'Nuh-uh!' counter.

Imagine that counter used in defense of an inappropriate action.
Debater: Hey, you just punched me in the face!
Me: That assertion is controversial.
Debater: No it's not! My nose is bleeding!
Me: The bleeding of your nose is a subject of widespread dispute.
Debater: I think it's broken...
Me: Scholars have noted that self-assessment can be a wholly subjective experience.
Debater: I can see the part of the septum sticking out of the left side.
Me: Eyewitness accounts are considered unreliable.
       You Can't Prove Anything, so Face Punching Is Not That Bad.

I'm sure you get the picture (which can't be confirmed, because photographic evidence can be easily faked using graphic arts software.) The nature of such a debate style is less human rights activist and more seedy slick salesman.

This may be offered alongside appeals to emotion using feminist rhetoric on the historical roles of women, often including exaggerations, along with a contradictory combination of statements of gratitude toward feminism for fixing those problems, and assertions that those problems are not fixed: Women Once Had It Rough, so FINTB, Feminism Did Something I Like, so FINTB, and I need feminism because the problems I'm claiming that its advocacy has solved still exist.

Calling the FINTB debater out on the irrational nature of such arguments results in accusations of stubbornness and misogyny, further unfounded denials, and begging the difference by offering feminist rhetoric as if it is established fact. In some cases, the debater has straw-manned inaccurate paraphrasing of my previous statements for the purpose of shaping the argument into something easier to counter. Other debaters have descended into angry private messages, personal attacks, and childish demands for concession. None so far seem to be able to offer any measurable evidence to back up their previous assertions, and this is the point at which these conversations generally end.  
    
Ordinarily I'd think I had simply run into a few fringe kooks, dismiss the behavior, and move on... but the number of discussions which have fallen into this pattern, combined with the sudden, widespread opposition within men's rights discussion forums and social media to any criticism of feminism, indicates that the method may be based on a set of talking points, or on the opinions expressed in recent feminist writing. It almost seems organized. The similarity of various debaters' approaches doesn't necessarily indicate this as the next step in the feminist response to men's rights activism, but the existence of this pattern definitely makes the technique something to watch for and be ready to address.