𝐿𝒢𝓃𝒢 "not yet begun to fight"May 23

Okay. I'm a teacher, so let me say this in a way everybody can understand.

If you ask me for $5 and I say no, but you take it out of my purse anyway, that's stealing.

If you ask me for $5 and I'm too drunk to either say yes or no, but you take $5 from my purse anyway, that's stealing.

If I give $5 to your friend, so you decide that gives you the right to take $5 out of my purse, that's stealing.

If I gave $5 to you yesterday, so you decide to take $5 out of my purse today, that's stealing.

If I'm flashing hundred dollar bills on the street, just really flaunting how much money I have, so you decide to take $5 out of my purse, that's stealing.

If I tell you I'll give you $5, but then, while reaching into my purse to get it, I change my mind and say actually no, but you decide to take the $5 anyway, that's stealing.

If you hold a gun to my head and force me to give you $5, even if I physically reach into my purse and hand you the $5 without another word, that's stealing.

If no one has ever given you $5, and you can see I have extra money in my purse, so you take $5, that's stealing.

If we're married, and you ask for $5 and I say no, but you decide to take $5 out of my purse anyway, that's stealing.

If you say "God gave me $5" and then take $5 out of my purse, that's stealing.

If you're my boss, and you tell me you'll fire me if I don't give you $5 right now, that's stealing.

If you want $5, and I reach in my purse and only give you $1, but you reach in while the purse is open and take $5 anyway, that's stealing.

If you pretend to be my friend in the hopes that being my friend will someday lead to me deciding to give you $5, you aren't actually my friend. And if you take the $5 you were expecting to get for pretending to be my friend, that's stealing.

The reason all men can easily understand this, and that there are no "grey areas" in stealing $5, is that men value $5 more than they value a woman's body.

Show threadSky-haired Miranda πŸ’™πŸ™May 23

@Lana I wasn't completely at ease when reading the conclusion, and it took me a while to understand why. Because I fully agree with the point you make, sexual consent is no more difficult to understand than consent to give five dollars.

What made me uncomfortable is that it's where the comparison stops. Because I think theft can sometimes be morally right. If a starving person steals five dollars from a billionaire, yes, that's stealing, no doubt about it, but I'll probably not think bad of it, especially if it incurred no violence. It causes negligible harm to the billionaire and prevents someone from starving for at least a few hours. (And even if there was violence, depending on the specifics, I feel the matter would at least be debatable.) Stealing can be justifiable, rape and sexual assault never are. That's what made me uncomfortable. (Again, I'm fully aware you're making a point about definition and understanding and not about what is justifiable or not. I just wanted to point that out before someone who is comfortable with justifying rape tries to push the analogy further than it can be.)

(I was trying to find something worse to compare it to, but even murder can sometimes be justifiable, at least in defense of your own life if nothing else is possible. The only thing I can think of is torture, it's similarly unjustifiable in any circumstances.)

Show threadKudra May 23

@miranda_blue @Lana same! I was reading through going "ok, so what is the point going to be... will it be a consent thing, which obviously we still have a LOT of problems with in our culture, or is this going to turn out to be about native title, colonialism, or something else in which theft gets turned on its head?" so it left me feeling a bit" hmmmm" as well.

I guess I've been reading too much about economics lately, yesterday I just watched a video about money (the fatal design of debt-based money, in case you are wondering) and so that was kindof swirling about in my head more. Money is imaginary. But we sure put a huge amount of stock in it. It's going to get weird soon as our financial system collapses.

But yeah, consent is really important!!

Show thread𝐿𝒢𝓃𝒢 "not yet begun to fight"
@kudra @miranda_blue the thing about analogies is they will never, ever, ever be a 1:1 perfect representation of the thing you're making the analogy about. If it was a 1:1 perfect representation of the thing, it would just be the thing. So while I agree with you in the specifics of how this analogy differs, I disagree with you that this is a falling of the specific analogy. That is, rather, a falling of ALL analogies, because that is how analogies function.
May 23 at 10:28pmWeb
Show threadKudra May 23
@Lana @miranda_blue you are right, and I don't think the analogy fails, this and the cup of tea analogy are both excellent! Nothing is ever 1:1, for sure. I can't speak for @miranda_blue but for me, I was curious what other point might have been being made with the setup, because money and theft are both complicated. Consent imo is clearer than both, but that's probably because I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, and do not subscribe to a patriarchal view of the world in which all women are "naturally" less than men and all things other than (white) men are seen as property, as opposed to equals with self sovereign rights. We need more people to understand consent, so what you are doing is great!
Show thread𝐿𝒢𝓃𝒢 "not yet begun to fight"May 23

@kudra @miranda_blue

Sorry I thought the point was made rather clearly with the final sentence. In case it was unclear, the point of the analogy is:

Men easily understand ownership of $5, but in many cases refuse to accept women's ownership of our own bodies and the reason for this discrepancy is that men value women's bodies less than they value $5.

Show threadKudra May 23

@Lana @miranda_blue I can only speak for myself, but yes, I understand the point of the analogy. I've also been clear that I think the analogy is a good one.

But while reading and before getting to the final paragraph, I wondered if it was going to go somewhere else, and so understood what @miranda_blue was talking about as well. Not a criticism, just pondering theft and money on a different level.

Show thread𝐿𝒢𝓃𝒢 "not yet begun to fight"May 23

@kudra @miranda_blue

Fair enough.

To be honest, even under the conditions you mentioned (theft of $5 from a billionaire), I think the analogy still holds up to scrutiny. I could, for instance, happily concede the following to a hypothetical Andrew Tate style misogynist:

"If I owned a billion bodies (notice how his hypothetical already fails due to arguing from a false premise), and you needed one body to survive (a second false premise) then it might be legally illegal and classed as stealing, but morally potentially reasonable, to take one of my billion bodies that I acquired through immoral means (again, a third false premise, women only have one body and it is not acquired unethically) and use it for sex."

I could happily agree to that conclusion based on the analogy. A conclusion of ambiguous morality, reached via three different false premises, which is still legally stealing.

Show threadOdradekMay 25
@Lana @kudra @miranda_blue seems clear enough, especially as you wrote "grey areas" being the point. but one has to accept the premise, it's not about the morality of stealing, but the scope of the term and - way milder - cases of victim blamings with thefts are also not relevant. so I wonder, if this is convincing for those who disagree; or if they could be reasoned with anyway. it's better to try than resign anyway.
Show threadOdradekMay 25

@Lana @kudra @miranda_blue thinking of discussions about the trolley-dilemma: many don't get the ends of it and that it ist part of the game to accept the premises of thought experiments. the other - bigger - problem is, that only talking about the trolley dilemma raises the probability of people accepting the "utilitarist" solution, it's similar with debates about torture.

I really don't know which way that works in this example, using proberty in the analogy.

Show threadOdradekMay 25
@Lana @kudra @miranda_blue so the circularity-problem is salvagable, the willing-stupidity-problem on the other hand …