Look Jay I wouldn't be surprised if the statistics above are correct. I thought your post was poignant and spot on when it comes to sexual harassment and the way "nice guys" generally alienate woman and harbor a deep seeded misogyny. Then you wrote how 40% of gamers are women. I just don't believe that. The gamer/nerd community is very white/asian, very heterosexual, and VERY male. I think the problem of "magic culture" is that its hard to get a woman to do something that is male dominated. Lets say a woman did become interested in the game, she then goes online, goes to local tournaments, looks at the pro circuit, goes to her local game shop and sees no one like her. Even if everyone treated her as an equal, they wouldn't, it is very unpleasant to be the only female in a room of men. Go to your favorite sad dive bar, if there aren't any woman there at 9 odds are not that many will show up by midnight. Its uncomfortable, even without the undo attention. This is a self perpetuating problem for nerds and mtg, woman don't take part because they feel alienated because there are no woman.
I understand there is a change in the tides. While that 40% figure just sounds off more woman are showing up in online games, LARP events, and LGS. The problem is they are entering a very male community and if they aren't their with a boyfriend, they will be swarmed by geeky, awkward men. Now many gamer women are geeky and awkward as well, unfortunately some (mostly) younger women like the attention they get from being the only girl present (celebrity status). I feel that more are driven to stay online when it comes to gamer/nerd culture as it is simply easier. Even there I know many, probably most conceal their identities for a period of time at least. I used to be big on MTGNews and from what I remember a serious chunk of the "out" women were the kind who liked the attention, even had MTGNews "boyfriends". Most hid unless you knew them very well (e=I was a big colo poster and one of our best players was a woman, she kept that fact hidden to everyone who wasn't in our chat group). You can read articles on top of articles about the harassment women face via the anonymity of the internet once there gender is revealed, especially by younger guys playing computer games.
Figuring this was as good a hiding space as any, Dan descended the ladder and closed the hinge above him, making sure not to lock himself in. The man then tried to stay calm in the dark and listened for the sound of another.
Dan took his naginta and placed it in the straw bedding, trying to cover it up. With his stealthiest footing, the man went to the trap door and lifted it, looking down within.
Dan extinguished the smoke on the bottom of his shoe and chucked it over the balcony, along with his match. The man subsequently rose to his feet and tried the door.
It can also be dangerous for the blind person themselves. A favorite law school case of mine involved facts almost too bizarre to be true. A blind elderly man was a short wave radio nut. The local short wave radio "scene" was fairly limited and he became bitter enemies with one of the few other short wave radio enthusiasts who was on the same time as he on a regular basis. One night, knowing the blind man owned guns from prior conversations, the mans rival stated he was going to travel to the blind mans house and murder him. The rival then called the police, provided the police with the blind mans address and stated that an insane person was menacing the neighborhood with a shotgun from the address. The police proceeded over and found the blind man on his porch holding a shotgun. When they proceeded up the porch the blind man yelled that he was going to kill the rival before he could kill him, fired a shot in the air and pointed the weapon onto the porch. The elderly man was killed in a hail of police gunfire. This is an extreme scenario used in law school to illustrate proximate cause, however, it does provide a memorable example of the dangers of giving the disabled weapons, even if they are not concealed carry.
Dan panted loudly as he lied on the floor. The man rose to his feet and sat the straw chair upright, trying to position it in the exact spot it was prior. The man yanked his weapon out of the ground. He proceeded to sit on the straw chair and smoke a cigarette. As he relaxed he looked around the balcony, looking for a possible entrance into the second story of the building.
My boss is legally blind and he keeps two revolvers in a locked desk in his office. He wears thick glasses and can barely see even with them on. I once asked if he kept them loaded to which he responded "there isn't much point to an unloaded gun". I didn't say anything but it scared the crap out of me. So no.
I was actually referring to this case http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/04/09/10-17687.pdf. It looks like it was largely decided on ripeness grounds and the substantive issue was brushed aside. It was a 2009 case and discusses the RFRA. Again this kind of law, while interesting, was never a strength of mine even in law school. Patent attorney eh? IP has always been a subject that I've had a lot of interest in, albeit an area I have no plans to ever practice in. With the current patent troll controversies, I imagine it is an interesting time to practice.
Bitteroot, through reading this thread I have gathered that you are an attorney. I am as well. This constitutional law stuff is a little outside my wheel house (I am a public defender). I was curious what your thoughts were on that 9th circuit case that held laws of general applicability, ones that do not target a religion or a religious practice, should only be held to the rational basis standard of review. The case was about a Native American tribe claiming a right to use marijuana for religious purposes. The feds held that laws prohibiting marijuana use are not targeted at a religion or a religious practice and as such the proper standard of review is rational basis. The goal of the AFA is not to target a particular religion or religious practice. They used strict scrutiny. I am too lazy to look up the name of the case right now but I was talking to the people in my office (again, a public defenders office) and we were kind of at an impasse. The best argument we could come up with was that the law at hand in Hobby Lobby is not criminal but thats a kind of weak argument. I just can't for the life of me reconcile this 9th circuit case with Hobby Lobby. Thoughts?
For the sake of full disclosure, I have not read the Religious Freedom Restoration Act but I do understand that it requires strict scrutiny when there is a substantial burden on free exercise. Combine my general lack of knowledge in this area with the fact that and I find Alito's logic hard to follow (man I wish Scalia or Roberts wrote this one) and Im at a loss.
PS: I am a politically liberal person but I want to leave politics out of this, just a good old fashion legal conversation. Also, what kind of law do you practice
Dan sighed and swung his body slightly away from the ledge before transferring his power towards the ledge, attempting to get a leg up on the structure and climb his way on.
Exhaling rapidly Dan paused and caught his breath. With as few and as powerful movements as he could muster, the man tried to pull himself up to the balcony by his weapon.
Dan stuck both hands as close as possible to one end of his dual bladed weapon. The man backed up as far as he could and made a running jump for the balcony, extending his naginta for the base of the structure. He tensed his grip up on the back end of the weapon, hoping his weapon would plant itself into the structure.
In a daring and unlikely acrobatic feat, Dan backed up a dozen yards, charged the windowsill and planted his polearm into the ground, attempting to vault to the window sill.
I understand there is a change in the tides. While that 40% figure just sounds off more woman are showing up in online games, LARP events, and LGS. The problem is they are entering a very male community and if they aren't their with a boyfriend, they will be swarmed by geeky, awkward men. Now many gamer women are geeky and awkward as well, unfortunately some (mostly) younger women like the attention they get from being the only girl present (celebrity status). I feel that more are driven to stay online when it comes to gamer/nerd culture as it is simply easier. Even there I know many, probably most conceal their identities for a period of time at least. I used to be big on MTGNews and from what I remember a serious chunk of the "out" women were the kind who liked the attention, even had MTGNews "boyfriends". Most hid unless you knew them very well (e=I was a big colo poster and one of our best players was a woman, she kept that fact hidden to everyone who wasn't in our chat group). You can read articles on top of articles about the harassment women face via the anonymity of the internet once there gender is revealed, especially by younger guys playing computer games.
For the sake of full disclosure, I have not read the Religious Freedom Restoration Act but I do understand that it requires strict scrutiny when there is a substantial burden on free exercise. Combine my general lack of knowledge in this area with the fact that and I find Alito's logic hard to follow (man I wish Scalia or Roberts wrote this one) and Im at a loss.
PS: I am a politically liberal person but I want to leave politics out of this, just a good old fashion legal conversation. Also, what kind of law do you practice