I commend Matthew Garrett for advocating against the trivialization of rape, and taking a hardliner stance in favor of inclusivity. Indeed we need more people seriously acting to put an end to sexism and patriarchy in FOSS communities.
However, labeling Ted Ts'o as a rape apologist is ill-informed and not conducive toward achieving inclusivity, increasing more diverse participation in FOSS, and reducing factors which "alienate 50% of the population".
In writing this post, Matthew is clearly following the suggestions of Valerie Aurora, the author of the linked article "Open Source Software: Open to all?" (https://adainitiative.org/2012/10/open-source-software-open-to-all/), when she encourages people to vehemently speak out against people who express beliefs like Ted.
In this article, Valerie decries Ted's posts on the mailing list but offer's little constructive criticism. The third paragraph is the only one in which she directly addresses Ted's posts. She writes, "Ts’o wrote that rape was impossible if both people were drunk enough, and that including several common kinds of rape in rape statistics could be 'hyperbolic and misleading.' I won’t go into detail here because it’s pretty offensive".
Valerie writes with the assumption that all readers will understand what is inherently wrong with Ted's post. I did not, and sought to get more concrete answers.
According to the US Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920), the classification of rape specifically requires "unlawful force", "greivous bodily harm", or "impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct" without consent.
According to this definition, rape cannot be confirmed or denied by drunkenness alone. Thus, both Valerie and Ted are incorrect. However, if the specific aforementioned necessities are absent, Ted is correct in arguing that drunkenness does not mean rape. Thus, his "challenging the use of statistics that may be hyperbolic and misleading" is reasonable, since he is referencing statistics that classify nonviolent sexual encounters as rape. Indeed, regarding one of these articles, Ted writes his assumptions: "For example, [the article] points out that over half of those cases were ones where undergraduates were plied with alcohol, and did not otherwise involve using physical force or other forms of coercion". (http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/ted_mail/0037.html) Thus, if your definition of rape requires force or violence, then these statistics that count nonviolent sexual encounters as rape are indeed misleading.
This conclusion may be unsatisfying to those whose definition of rape is more general, like Matthew, myself, and Valerie. To them, perhaps, rape may refer to any non-consensual sexual act (without the specific aforementioned requirements). Indeed, these people are not alone! The official definition of rape by the FBI is different from the one in the US Code! Rape - "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/attorney-general-eric-holder-announces-revisions-to-the-uniform-crime-reports-definition-of-rape Note the absence of any reference to a requirement of force for a sexual encounter to be considered rape.
With this definition, rape still cannot be confirmed or denied based on drunkeness alone! Now, we must examine the definition of consent. The US Code section on rape has a pretty thorough treatment of consent. It's the same link as before, near the bottom of the page: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920 Unfortunately, still, this definition of consent doesn't mention impairment. However, under the definition of sexual assault, one definition reads: [a person is guilty of sexual assault if he/she] "commits a sexual act upon another person when the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person". Thus, whether or not two copulating drunken individuals are sexually assaulting each other seems to hinge on whether the two impaired individuals can know that the other is impaired and unable to give consent. This is up for debate, but out of the scope of this comment.
What I hope to have shown is that this argument between Ted and those who agree with him (like some commenters above me), and Matthew, Valerie and those that agree with them is meaningless, since the two groups have conflicting definitions of rape. However, this conflicting definition is an issue which is larger than these groups -- the US code and the FBI have different definitions themselves!
Still, there exists this conflict between these two groups. I entreat Ted to examine the more inclusive definition of rape, and perhaps see how he may have offended and hurt those who have been impacted by nonviolent but nonconsensual sexual acts. Moreover, I believe that a mailing list for a work-related conference is not the place to have such discussions, and since he has quite clearly angered some people (however unwittingly), I hope he will apologize for the sake of goodwill across the diverse community, and to be magnanimous.
To Valerie, I wish you will include more concrete premises to back up your opinionated conclusions in the future, lest you lead others to start arguments based on such subtle things as differing definitions. Still, you are working toward a good goal. Keep it up.
To Matthew, I hope to have shown that Ted is a rape apologist only depending on your definition of rape. An apologist is "a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologist?s=t&ld=1093), but Ted is not defending rape -- he's not saying rape is okay! Instead, he's saying that certain acts are not rape, based on his definition of rape. However, to you, with a more general definition of rape, he is saying that some kinds of rape (inc. non-consenting sex) are okay (not rape). Still, your issue is not with him personally, it is with conflicting definitions of rape in our society. I entreat you to not be standoffish (though your meanings are in the right place), because it ensures disunity between groups of people, who probably both want the same things as I mentioned before: achieving inclusivity, increasing more diverse participation in FOSS, and reducing factors which "alienate 50% of the population". Probably, calling Ted a rape apologist is hurtful, and not constructive in the sense that you may have hoped. From the comments above me, it has just seemed to create more disagreement.
Perhaps a more productive post would have detailed how Ted's post may have been hurtful and alienating to some people.
Going forward, it's important to keep in mind that the definition of rape is a hotly contested thing. Often, you're not arguing against a person so much as against the current definition of rape. It may be best to qualify your definition of rape (be it non-consensual with force, strictly non-consensual, or something else), whenever you bring up the term in the future.
Definitions
However, labeling Ted Ts'o as a rape apologist is ill-informed and not conducive toward achieving inclusivity, increasing more diverse participation in FOSS, and reducing factors which "alienate 50% of the population".
In writing this post, Matthew is clearly following the suggestions of Valerie Aurora, the author of the linked article "Open Source Software: Open to all?" (https://adainitiative.org/2012/10/open-source-software-open-to-all/), when she encourages people to vehemently speak out against people who express beliefs like Ted.
In this article, Valerie decries Ted's posts on the mailing list but offer's little constructive criticism. The third paragraph is the only one in which she directly addresses Ted's posts. She writes, "Ts’o wrote that rape was impossible if both people were drunk enough, and that including several common kinds of rape in rape statistics could be 'hyperbolic and misleading.' I won’t go into detail here because it’s pretty offensive".
Valerie writes with the assumption that all readers will understand what is inherently wrong with Ted's post. I did not, and sought to get more concrete answers.
Ted specifically said, "if both Alice and Bob were drunk, there's no rape that has taken place". Valerie is implying that Ted is so wrong that he is offensive. (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Rape_apology_on_LCA_mailing_list)
According to the US Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920), the classification of rape specifically requires "unlawful force", "greivous bodily harm", or "impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct" without consent.
According to this definition, rape cannot be confirmed or denied by drunkenness alone. Thus, both Valerie and Ted are incorrect. However, if the specific aforementioned necessities are absent, Ted is correct in arguing that drunkenness does not mean rape. Thus, his "challenging the use of statistics that may be hyperbolic and misleading" is reasonable, since he is referencing statistics that classify nonviolent sexual encounters as rape.
Indeed, regarding one of these articles, Ted writes his assumptions: "For example, [the article] points out that over half of those cases were ones where undergraduates were plied with alcohol, and did not otherwise involve using physical force or other forms of coercion". (http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/ted_mail/0037.html)
Thus, if your definition of rape requires force or violence, then these statistics that count nonviolent sexual encounters as rape are indeed misleading.
This conclusion may be unsatisfying to those whose definition of rape is more general, like Matthew, myself, and Valerie. To them, perhaps, rape may refer to any non-consensual sexual act (without the specific aforementioned requirements). Indeed, these people are not alone! The official definition of rape by the FBI is different from the one in the US Code!
Rape - "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/attorney-general-eric-holder-announces-revisions-to-the-uniform-crime-reports-definition-of-rape
Note the absence of any reference to a requirement of force for a sexual encounter to be considered rape.
With this definition, rape still cannot be confirmed or denied based on drunkeness alone! Now, we must examine the definition of consent. The US Code section on rape has a pretty thorough treatment of consent. It's the same link as before, near the bottom of the page: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920
Unfortunately, still, this definition of consent doesn't mention impairment. However, under the definition of sexual assault, one definition reads:
[a person is guilty of sexual assault if he/she] "commits a sexual act upon another person when the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person".
Thus, whether or not two copulating drunken individuals are sexually assaulting each other seems to hinge on whether the two impaired individuals can know that the other is impaired and unable to give consent. This is up for debate, but out of the scope of this comment.
What I hope to have shown is that this argument between Ted and those who agree with him (like some commenters above me), and Matthew, Valerie and those that agree with them is meaningless, since the two groups have conflicting definitions of rape. However, this conflicting definition is an issue which is larger than these groups -- the US code and the FBI have different definitions themselves!
Still, there exists this conflict between these two groups. I entreat Ted to examine the more inclusive definition of rape, and perhaps see how he may have offended and hurt those who have been impacted by nonviolent but nonconsensual sexual acts. Moreover, I believe that a mailing list for a work-related conference is not the place to have such discussions, and since he has quite clearly angered some people (however unwittingly), I hope he will apologize for the sake of goodwill across the diverse community, and to be magnanimous.
To Valerie, I wish you will include more concrete premises to back up your opinionated conclusions in the future, lest you lead others to start arguments based on such subtle things as differing definitions. Still, you are working toward a good goal. Keep it up.
To Matthew, I hope to have shown that Ted is a rape apologist only depending on your definition of rape. An apologist is "a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologist?s=t&ld=1093), but Ted is not defending rape -- he's not saying rape is okay! Instead, he's saying that certain acts are not rape, based on his definition of rape.
However, to you, with a more general definition of rape, he is saying that some kinds of rape (inc. non-consenting sex) are okay (not rape). Still, your issue is not with him personally, it is with conflicting definitions of rape in our society. I entreat you to not be standoffish (though your meanings are in the right place), because it ensures disunity between groups of people, who probably both want the same things as I mentioned before: achieving inclusivity, increasing more diverse participation in FOSS, and reducing factors which "alienate 50% of the population". Probably, calling Ted a rape apologist is hurtful, and not constructive in the sense that you may have hoped. From the comments above me, it has just seemed to create more disagreement.
Perhaps a more productive post would have detailed how Ted's post may have been hurtful and alienating to some people.
Going forward, it's important to keep in mind that the definition of rape is a hotly contested thing. Often, you're not arguing against a person so much as against the current definition of rape. It may be best to qualify your definition of rape (be it non-consensual with force, strictly non-consensual, or something else), whenever you bring up the term in the future.
Regards,
Hashem Nasarat