Anti-sexual violence research, practice & activism does not centre perpetrators "beliefs & intentions" of harm to victims for simple reason:
TW rape, ableism: Philosophers @PeterSinger & Jeff McMahan support rape culture focusing on "intent" of perpetrator https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/opinion/who-is-the-victim-in-the-anna-stubblefield-case.html?_r=0 …pic.twitter.com/zaH28rUtLF
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Perpetrators' intent doesn't matter when it comes to committing sexual crime. To argue otherwise is a defence of sexual violence.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It is uninformed, unethical & dangerous to defend sexual crimes from perspective of perpetrator. Simple literature review would show this.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Philosophers should know better, but one cannot dabble in a field of scholarship, policy & practice. Esp for sake of defending a colleague.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
McMahan &
@PeterSinger use@nytimes to argue "Many of those in the community of advocates for people with disabilities have different view"Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Again, a simple consult of the empirical literature would that people with disabilities are at high risk of sexual violence incl by carers.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
McMahan &
@PeterSinger do not bother to reference the research nor do they consult disability scholars & activists. This is academic ableismThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
To claim to be reflecting the consensus of disability scholarship, & ignore feminist research on sexual violence is reprehensible.
@nytimes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
"Think pieces" like this reinforce institutional damage against people with disabilities, victims of sexual violence & disabled survivors
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What's ethics of making a comparison between Brock Turner case & Prof Stubblefield? Neither McMahan nor
@PeterSinger spoke out on formerThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Academics make choices daily that reinforce existing inequalities.
@PeterSinger & Jeff McMahan have exacerbated damage to vulnerable groups -
It's a weird kind of hubris/ignorance that academics think we are exempt from perpetuating the same kind of inequalities we write about
-
Truth. We need to critically examine the causes we choose to speak out on, those we don't, and why. Silence on some inequalities over others
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Publishers also make daily choices that stifle public education by amplifying voices of dominant groups (White men) over others, such as PWD
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Family of John Doe dispute Stubblefield's account https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/a-reply-to-mcmahan-and-singer-on-the-stubblefield-case/ … Stubblefield's claims consistent with carers who are perpetrators
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Science is political. Scientists in high places use their influence to misinform on health issues affecting marginalised people.
#marginsciThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Gender is a cloak here; one sexual crime deemed greater injustice over another. But only one crime moved them to write on
@nytimes. Ethics? -
What would it take to get men like McMahan and Singer to speak out about pervasive sexual harassment & rape in academia, one has to wonder?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.