Process, Ethics, and Justice: An Inauspicious Note Regarding the Politics of Rape Culture

Which is really sad, when you think about it - they were so utterly committed to party that, when faced with a candidate of theirs they couldn't stomach, they stayed home instead of doing their civic duty to make sure he wasn't elected.

Of course, then we have rampant gerrymandering (on both sides of the aisle) and what can only be called election tampering (I presume you are following the fiasco in Virgina? From the pictures I've seen of the ballot in question that has made this a tie, it would seem to obviously be a spoiled ballot based on the states own rules regarding it... but they counted it Republican anyway. I wonder how many "spoiled" ballots of similar condition for both sides were disregarded...)

Aye... it seems to be what we've arrived at.

I honestly fear for the future of this country at this rate; what are we going to be handing over to our children?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No evidence of that. The vote totals for the white counties were normal for a special election in an off year - maybe even a bit high.

The disgusted Reps voted write-in.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No we focused on the reason he a bad candidate no one cared about, instead of focusing our plans to better the nation we were focus on his pussy garbing, thus we had are candidate with was not pushing jobs jobs jobs verse their candidate that was, and thus we lost.

Yes, we need to have a candidate that energizes the electorate with hope, not a candidate whose only plus is she does not grab pussy.

I see you believe their apologist propaganda, clearly you are an alt-right sympathizers, tsk tsk.

No my argument is if you point out one aspect of the candidate that people don't care about, and don't focus on what they do care about, and he does, then we lose. People want job security, better income, stability, he promised all that with a lexicon any 4 year old could understand, what we provided to counter that was not jobs, was a machiavellian war hawk traditional politicians that everyone was inoculated too and whose biggest strategy was the point out that trump grabs pussy, total loser!

Yes your strawman is mind-numbingly stupid, I'm glad you noticed. Universal healthcare, living $15 minimum wage, free education, progressive taxation of the rich to pay for it all, these are issues that are highly anti-republican and yet also very popular, this is what we should be pushing, that we have the policies for bettering the nation and they don't, all they have is regressive taxation, stripping of welfare and healthcare, and kicking out all the immigrants, that should be our top campaign platform. Rapeculture and social justice is not a viable election platform, "vote for me because I have a vagina" did not work!

Oh so Clinton's president then? Do you understand we need to campaign per state with strategies to get enough votes in the right states to win? I would love a pure popular vote but we don't live in that world. We lost the Blue wall of working class white voters in 2016 because we had a candidate that could not sell a jobs first policy and their side did.

I will blame all the people whose ideology fucked us, yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OH MY GOD LIKE HELLA MUCH RAPE CULTURE HERE!

Just watch this:



Can you believe it, sister righteously point out how our rapeculture allows these men to touch her and abuse her! We should all get all over social media and protest, change things for the better!

 

You know how I've been telling you to stop telling people what they think? Well, that's the thing. So, hey, we can agree it's bullshit, and that's fine going forward, but you don't get to complain.

And here is an important difference:

• You keep complaining about process, but are incapable of actually discussing it, or, more directly:

→ How many times do you intend to fail to discuss what passes as due process?

→ It seems obvious↑ you disdain the point about what passes for due process because even when it's put in front of you↑, you won't answer, but intend to stand on the underlying demand about process↑.

↳ It's one thing to imagine that your insistent standards somehow accidentally keep carving out safe pathways for sexual violence, but when you're ducking the question of botched process while appealing to process, people are going to notice.​

So why don't you try getting around to giving some educated consideration to process without winnowing down to↑, "Can we really expect the wealthy elite to impose stricter rules upon themselves?" That was one circle you never closed, but largely because it was built of political spaghetti. Yes, purity cult is very, very important in all of this, but you never brought that part around; it stands out like a beacon, a random flag planted because you know it's an important element, but there is a very broad and diverse range between iron fist abstinence and Polly Trotsky.

And, by the way, any time you want to bring biological urges into discussions involving sexual violence, you'll want to tie that one down, too; that really isn't a loose end to leave hanging in the wind.

From the outset, this thread has involved the botching of process; you have fallen back to an appeal for process, but process itself is botched.

Proven true before punishment? Hey, are you saying they should have had their due process instead of been protected from enduring it?

Because the points you're ducking about what passes for due process become really, really important.

So, yes, actually, it does, according to your posts, very convincingly appear that you are, in fact, okay with law enforcement deliberately tanking rape cases and harassing rape victims.

Shouldn't it be proven true before punishment? Well, you know, what about botched process? You know, like the cops tanking the report, or harassing the reporting victim, or a state institution helping an accused rapist evade a no-contact order specifically in order to harass the accuser, or passing on a rape report and confession in order to prosecute the victim because the confessed rapist is the son of a rich guy who is a friend of the police department.

You know, like the parts you keep utterly failing to address.

And that failure, combined with your insistence on whining about process and society and all that excrement, really is why it looks like you are okay with law enforcement deliberately tanking rape cases and harassing rape victims.

Compared to the occasion you actually invented part of another person's argument—("If A then B"; Kittamaru adds, "and not C")—you need to cram the self-righteous bawling.

Quite clearly you don't like stinger lines. Nobody does. But some of us don't bother shrugging when we deliver them because regardless of how irrational the decision toward any such indulgence might be, some people make those decisions while looking at rational objects while others do so enthralled by glittering baubles of fantastic vice.

The one thing you don't seem to want to do is justify your loathsome behavior. The baubles look glamorous and alluring, but something about a Nicholas Cage performance goes here, and trying to make the bomb look sexy with little green baubles that shine just so.

Anyway:

(1) Are you willing to address process itself, or do you intend to simply hide behind vague rhetoric about it?

(2) What is the acceptable amount of sexual violence for the sake of political aesthetics according to your demand?​

 

I want to beat the living daylights out of her because it's females like that who make it even more difficult for those who are real victims of sexual harassment and assault to be taken seriously. i don't even think females like this are real women. to call them a woman is an insult to women.

that said, i can see why she was resisting (stupidly) arrest and what her mindframe was. she was drunk but since she lives in a culture where cannabis use, even though illegal except for medical use, is considered okay and common, so in her mind, she is being targeted unfairly or it shouldn't be criminalized. also, the fact she was parked probably added to her thinking that she was doing nothing wrong and more self-righteous, therefore resisting arrest.

but her move of stupidly resisting arrest whereby bringing upon your own injury (she may have believed she was in the right though she wasn't), not knowing or understanding the laws (these two not the worst) but especially her move of making up sexual assault so she can get off freely or out of spite, is unforgivable.

that's a heinous thing to do because it affects the integrity of the criminal justice system and real victims that need justice. people who do this should be severely punished to the fullest extent possible for this type of crime (false testimony and lies) because it has serious and larger ramifications. This is to send a serious message to society that the only wrongdoing is not just those who physically commit crimes but those who falsely accuse or lie that they have been victimized is just as evil.

unfortunately, many people think lying, slander and falsehood is something that is of no real consequence or not punished or just a slap on the wrist so it's more prevalent. in cases where the law is involved and criminal procedures and actions can be taken against someone who is innocent, this is very serious. it makes a mockery of the entire justice system when that's the only legal recourse people have to get justice if they have really been victimized.

 

Want to be taken seriously: go to the police, file charges, get a lawyer. Want to not be taken seriously: do what she does, extra points if you do it on social media.

Jeez what ever happen to just being people?

Well sure if the drug war was over, she and her friends could be left parked by the side of the road stoned and drunk out of their minds, unless below the legal drinking/imbibing age, which they were.

Well if you think that was bad, I found another one, even worse:



"I ASK FOR A FUCKING WOMEN COP!" "and he put her hands on her!" "she is a 18 year old girl!" "I am white, I am disgusted by the way he put his hands on her!" "he just pick her up and throw her!" "100% by far the is degrading"

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6106236-181/judge-jails-petaluma-mother-and?artslide=0

In a halting speech he read at the sentencing hearing, Holton expressed outrage the women turned on him when he stopped at their Liberty Road house in June 2015 to investigate a domestic disturbance. And the 21-year veteran spoke of his relief to have been wearing one of the department’s new body cameras to document what actually happened.

The video captured the women shouting at Holton and wagging their fingers at him as he tried to question a sister who was drunk. Also, the women were recorded using racial slurs during jail phone calls to each other. Both were played for jurors, who returned guilty verdicts last month for each woman.

“I will tell you, Gabrielle Lemos, you delayed and resisted me throughout this incident,” Holton, 44, said, choking back tears. “I come to find out it was because of the color of my skin.”

Holton said the headline-grabbing allegations of police brutality took a personal toll. His mother died before he could be vindicated. And publicity from the case prevented him from participating in a daughter’s school functions “without parents looking down on me,” he said.

“Mom, I hope you can hear me,” Holton told the courtroom. “They were found guilty.”

Medvigy acknowledged Holton’s suffering, saying it shows police are “just as vulnerable as our citizens in a lot of ways.”

Meanwhile this is what happens when a black male resists arrest:

 

#dueprocess | #rapeculture​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

We might revisit a note on process↑:

How do these attitudes affect the influence of the staff director and chief counsel to the Ethics Office. And maybe they asked for a vector describing rape culture but, yeah, this is the staff director and chief counsel of an Ethics Office for an organization that pays out secret settlements involving nondisclosure agreements that in turn allow predators to continue their hunts; some things seem self-evident.​

Or perhaps reiterate a paragraph from another thread↗:

I admit I was thinking of Annie Clark ("rape is like football") and Landen Gambill (threatened with expulsion by the University, then harassed by the University on behalf of her accused rapist in order to circumvent a no-contact order); but her name was right there alongside the other two when I looked it up. I was also thinking of Kendall Anderson↗ (a criminal suspect for reporting rape). I was thinking of Meagan Rondini↗ (harassed to death after reporting rape).​

But, y'know that's just me. How about, oh, let's try Christine Emba↱:

When power dynamics shift as quickly as they have in the wake of #MeToo, individuals are thrown off kilter. The people most unnerved and eager to return to the past are those who suddenly realize they may no longer be on top.

And so, many men have rushed to gather what protections they feel they have left, while breathlessly pointing out all the ways the new arrangements are flawed. Thus, the urgent invocations of due process and the importance of protections for the accused, and the lurid visions of innocent men felled by "huntresses" who will "believe all women" at the expense of rule of law.

Except that last part is a fever dream.

We aren't seeing an epidemic of men being railroaded for flirting. There is no wave of false accusations washing defenseless men from their rightful careers. The cases taking over the news weren't sparked by untouchable accusers whose pointed fingers have the power to ruin careers. Instead, we've uncovered systemic, ongoing patterns of abuse perpetrated by men with power against women with much less of it. The evidence isn't scanty, and the accusations aren't random. There is never just one victim. And due process, invoked indulgently, often allows the guilty to linger in power for far longer than they deserve ....

.... Where sexual misconduct is concerned, arguments for due process are rarely about legal standards or constitutional ideals. More often, they're about to whom the process is due.​

Or Ijeoma Oluo↱ explaining her back and forth with USA Today, who didn't really want her actual opinion, but, rather, a feminist willing to write a piece against due process:

I told her that I'd be happy to write about how the fixation on "due process" for these men was an attempt to re-center the concerns of men. How the question itself was absurd, because if there's anything these stories show, it's that these men in their years of open abuse were given more than just due process — but the women, many of whom had tried bringing this abuse to those in authority years before, were given no process at all. I said I'd love to write about the countless women whose careers were ended by coming forward with the abuse they faced, about the countless women whose careers were never able to get off of the ground because of abuse and gender discrimination. Due process. Women would love ANY process. They would love to even be heard ....

.... USA Today called me back about five minutes later.

"I ran your idea past them," she said, "But what they really want is to write that they believe that it's great that these women are coming forward but that they believe in due process, and they want you to write that you don't. They want a piece that says that you don't believe in due process and that if a few innocent men lose their jobs it's worth it to protect women. Is that something you can do?" ....

.... I was asked to write that I do not believe in due process. I was asked to write that I believe we should just immediately fire all men accused of sexual harassment. I was asked to write that if a few men are harmed to protect women, it's worth it. As if that's a real threat. As if that's a valid fear. As if, in this world, a power shift of that magnitude is even within the realm of possibility. As if a lack of due process wouldn't first come for women, trans people, and people of color. As if due process isn't the one thing so many men and their enablers in this society are working so hard to avoid.​

The giveaway in the masculine turn toward due process is that the advocates cannot really explain it properly; but like USA Today told Oluo, "what they really want is to write that they believe that it's great that these women are coming forward but that they believe in due process, and they want you to write that you don't". The irony that a newspaper wants her as an object and not a living voice is not lost on those who actually pay attention, but neither is the irony of appeals to due process on behalf of those who have struggled so mightily to avoid or escape it.
____________________

Notes:

Emba, Christine. "We're misunderstanding due process". The Washington Post. 1 December 2017. WashingtonPost.com. 21 December 2017. http://wapo.st/2kAUJQH

Oluo, Ijeoma. "Due Process Is Needed For Sexual Harassment Accusations — But For Whom?" The Establishment. 30 November 2017. TheEstablishment.co. 21 December 2017. http://bit.ly/2BQoJza

 

you are aware that people are aware that people do this, male or female, right? i mean, we're all aware of female teachers who take advantage of their underage students, for example. even though your point is valid, that doesn't negate the ovewhelming problem of sexual harassment and assault against women and children, especially, and that has been culturally ingrained for a very long time and has a heavy past and track record. the point really is about repercussions. whenever it's unbalanced in either direction, that's when more sociopaths come out of the woodworks to try to see what they can get away with, believe they can or believe society won't take it seriously. it's how it's handled that is really important, not saying one is less or more.

but still, no matter what, there will be people who try to break the law in whatever way they can, for whatever reason they have.

 

Rephrasing to restore realistic framing: less severe cases should evoke less severe repercussions, and severity of abuse should be taken into account in assigning consequences.

Your objection to that is what, specifically?

 

Which would seem to come back to a simple set of solutions:

1) Raise less assholes - fix the currently dysfunctional stereotype / archetype of "masculinity" and "femininity" as we raise our children (long term solution with long term benefits)

2) Fix the current laws and enforce them equitably across all levels of wealth/power/et al (shorter term solution with more immediate benefits, including a cessation of things like the Brock Turner case)

3) Start addressing allegations of abuse (of any type) immediately and expediently without throwing the accused or accuser into the media spotlight (at least until the investigation is completed)

Is anything stated there undesirable or otherwise unwarranted?

 

yes, YES! Someone gets it!

Yeah so what do we do about it? Well for one: go to the police, press charges, sue, don't wait for societies to stop stereotyping you. There will always be psychopaths (until we genetically and cybernetically eradicate them) we have law and order to keep them suppressed.

 

I THINK YOU ARE PROJECTING! Caps are for emphasizing points, I'm not timecube, jeez.

Yeah if 2+2=4, it true even if hitler says it. Also I have met Ms Sommers twice, she left wing, it is just only the right wing gives her air time.

Yeah I read it. Girls and women are now graduating from all levels of education at higher rates then boys and men. Childless women below the age of 30 are now earning more then men of the same demographic (it is only when women have children that there is a wage gap) maybe it is time we had more education programs focused on boys, more male teachers? But to say that is consider anti-feminist, hence how feminism is a problem.

Yes, I'm willing to brush off getting my ass pinch or my balls cupped with a "fuck off"

yeah don't have a problem with that, why do you think I would? Have I not been going on about the need to listen to the lower classes and their issues?

No I mean people like you; fanatic ideologies like conservatives that think "baby killing" and "sodomy" is harming the nation, just on the opposite side of the political spectrum. People like you that think women are so oppressed and tormented in the developed world and take everything as a slander against their sex and think they speak for a whole sex... like you do.

People like you that demand women's issues above all else, despite the fact that doing so results in electing the very opposite of what you want!

What the fuck does that even mean? Do explain, seriously? Do you think I want men doing the work? I would not be advocating women be proactive and proposition men instead of the other way around, I would not be advocating house husbands as a solution for the wag gape, and I certainly would not he demanding marriage be thrown in the garbage like it is, if I wanted the men to "do the work". I want women to have free and independent lives, where women take care of themselves like adult human beings, where if a crime is committed against them they go to the police or lawyers and sue, like people should.

whining on social media is not "fighting for their basic and fundamental human rights"

Well enough women seem to not realize that then, considering 47% voted for Trump, a majority of white women votes for trump.

I have no children, never will, neither male or female. I'm focused on fixing the economy for:



Women care about universal healthcare, a livable wage, free education, they want that for themselves, for their children, both female and male, and in aggregate they care more about that than sexual harassment, just hope of economic change cause them to vote for a pig boar pussy grabber in large enough droves to get us just that for president.

First of all what do you want done about sexual harrasment, name the laws you want? Second tabulate how that could be more benefit then universal healthcare, of a $15 minimum wage, or paid of student loans?

What rights are being violated? What action are you asking for? Action outside the law, no I will not support that!

yeah yeah yeah and the gays having gays sex is so bad for society too, blah, blah, aside for none of that being scientific studies, the number of lives and cost in living the lack of healthcare cost is certainly more objective and obvious, so I find it insane you think sexual harassment is the bigger problem to healthcare then lack of fucking healthcare!

But one again lets take your premise at face value: what do you want actually done about it, name the laws you want? You want any accusation made by a women accepted as truth and punished by what ever means, no that is not legal or civil!

You mean like enough women did in the last election, when we had Hillary Clinton running for president, champion of women everywhere? How the hell is putting economic justice as top priority "ignore women and to dismiss rape culture" I'm sure super PACs can rally fanatic ideologues like you to the side where the candidate can keep her/his hands clean and keep the message focused economic justice. A candidate going on about rapeculture (like "baby killing" or sodomy) will only rally the other side against the candidate, because the candidate is spouting ideological bullshit.

I think rapeculture, outside the developing world, is imaginary problem, most men in this culture accept women as equals of equal rights and do respect women bodily autonomy, I think it is an issue upper class women who have too much time on social media are wingding about hysterically in classically stereotypical ways like Rarities (ask Kittamaru to explains, did you see the video?) with no goal or political objective outside of "look at me, I'm oppressed, look at me!!!" and that lower class women know this and vote accordingly against us.

Our party can't win with only 53% of the female vote, and with a minority of the white women vote, this is proven fact. Poor white women don't like being told they have no problems other then sexual harassment, which they are told they should bitch about on social media, which they can't because they have extensive work shifts.

 

Same goes for people doing the accusing.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean - are you saying someone who was raped and goes through the lawful process against their rapist is then seen as unemployable, or that someone who falsely accuses someone of rape is seen as unemployable?

 

Ummmm... duh!

Honestly, you simply cannot be this ignorant--this is an act, right?

Edit: and where does this "falsely accuses" bit come from--are you even following any of this?

Alright, I'll be uncharacteristically charitable:

Why do you suppose Harvey Weinstein's accusers remained silent for so long?

 

Long as you're sure, why think?
For the rest of the adults on the planet, the reasonable ones: Depends on the "grade", remember? And the job - remember the airline pilot. And other circumstances.
You agreed to this, if you recall. You found it utterly absurd that anyone would remove a neurosurgeon mid-procedure, for example.

Don't change the subject. That's not in the quote at issue.

No doubt the woman speaking has many flaws of perception and analysis. But that wasn't the subject.

It's proving remarkably difficult to establish here. So far, we don't even have the existence of different levels reliably at hand: sometimes they are recognized, sometimes not - sometimes the mere recognition of them is treated as misogyny and serious character flaw.

 

because women are people and people lie? Should I give examples of falsely accuse? Couple minutes on google later:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-accused-of-rape-beaten-to-death-by-gang.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5144496/liam-allan-rape-case-met-police-cleared-croydon-crown-court/


This is why we have a legal system, because people lie, people are vindictive, spiteful and selfish, in order to settle any dispute between two or more people we need a unbiased judge and jury, and laws.

Because none of them CHOOSE to go to the police, they CHOOSE to further their careers instead by appeasing a perverted rapist and let him remain doing what he did for decades to dozens of other women. It was only by 2017 that it became socially trendy to complain about it publicly (and still not go to the police!). If your going to tell me there is some cultural pressure for women not to be adults and press charges, I would agree, it is horribly misogynistic culture that women are not treated like adults capable of going to the police. Meanwhile us men know no one gives a fuck if we are harassed, there is no cultural, social or instinctive desire to protect us like children, and we either need to brush it off or go to the police and press charges like adults.