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

And got a lot of republicans to stay home out of disgust. "Well, I'll never vote for a democrat! But Roy Moore sounds like a child molester. Maybe I will sit this one out."
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...)

You out fake news them. Preface every mention of Trump with "rapist." Get his victims on TV for ten minutes every hour.

Is that the way democracy is supposed to work? Of course not. But it's what people want, apparently.
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?
 
And got a lot of republicans to stay home out of disgust.
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.
 
billvon - maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I don't think that's the point he's trying to make; rather, I think the point was that, despite focusing on all the reasons Trump was a terrible candidate, he still won because his base will not be swayed, no matter what.

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.

Engaging those that, today, still back Trump is pointless - nothing will change their minds. What should happen, instead, would be getting the rest of the populace out and united behind a candidate (something the GOP is proving very adept at preventing)

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.

Which is correct. None of the alt-right movements out there today want to exterminate all the jews and blacks. If you make that argument, you lose.

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

So your argument is "if you point out one aspect of the candidate and he still wins, you can't point that out if you want to win the next time?"

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!

Trump was also a Republican. He won. Therefore anyone who votes for a democrat will fail. You can only vote for republicans if you want to win.
Trump was also a man. He won. Therefore anyone who votes for a woman will fail. You can only vote for men if you want to win.
Trump was also a billionaire. He won. Therefore anyone who votes for someone who is not a billionaire will fail. You can only vote for billionaires if you want to win.
Trump also bankrupted several companies. He won. Therefore anyone who votes for someone has only successful companies will fail. You can only vote for business failures if you want to win.

Would you like a few more examples of how mind-numbingly stupid that argument is? Or would you like to keep making it?

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!

We did. Result - Clinton won the popular vote.

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 am guessing you'll excuse Trump's actions and vote against him again. And if his opponent loses, you will blame all the people who voted against Trump.

I will blame all the people whose ideology fucked us, yes.
 
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!
 
Since you're OK with completely and utterly misrepresenting what I have said, using dishonest and disingenuous fallacy to try and further your agenda instead of discussing what is actually written before you, then I see no reason why I should bother taking you seriously at all.

It's almost sad, given how long you have harped on about how we've cultivated all of this in the back room, that you are now so completely embracing the mentality when it suits you. I say almost because, really, it isn't that unexpected.

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?​
 
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!

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

i don't even think females like this are real women. to call them a woman is an insult to women.

Jeez what ever happen to just being people?

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.

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.

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.

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


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
 
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:


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.
 
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.
Wow..

It is as though she has been a member here for the past few weeks...
Angry? You really fail to understand what going on beyond the monitor. I'm here drinking my espressos and about to take my dogs out cross country skiing, going to take the day off because I got no interns today to order around.
When people start to type IN ALL UPPER CAPS and end sentences as you did, it tends to show a level of lack of control of one's emotions and anger. In other words, you seem to be on the verge of something something. Perhaps cut back on the coffee?
The right to genital integrity, the right to not be drafted, the right to abort, give up to adoption or drop a baby off at a safe heaven while a man have no reproductive rights and must pay for children he never wanted by force of law. And then there is marriage = archaic, obsolete, immoral, practically a form of modern slavery for who ever is earning the most money (usually the man, because the women CHOOSES to have and raise the kids, here is an idea: have a househusband instead, but that does not happen often because instinct) .
I see your integration in misogynistic world of men's rights activism is now complete.
No. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/panic-not-answer-article-1.3651778

Except upon closer scrutiny, the Newsweek/WSJ poll showed nothing of the kind. It defined "harassment" very broadly. And women were asked if they had ever received "unwelcome sexual advances" at any point in their working lives. It did not distinguish between minor incidents and more serious cases of actionable harassment. And no time limit was given.

The General Social Survey is one of the most trusted sources of data in the social sciences. In 2014, a random sample of Americans was asked a straightforward question: "In the last 12 months, were you sexually harassed by anyone while you were on the job?"

To that question, only 3.6% of women said yes. That is down from 6.1% in 2002. These results do not suggest an epidemic. Nor even a trendline moving in the wrong direction.
Why are you quoting right wing propaganda from Ms Sommers?

Ms Sommers wrote a book where she blamed boys lack of academic achievements on women and feminism in particular. And I mean that literally.

Even in what you linked, Ms Sommers demands that sexual harassment be graded, as though less severe cases are somehow more acceptable. Do you agree with that assessment?

It's a shame that you failed to read down the article:

But even if we are not coping with an epidemic, we do still have a serious problem. There is a clear need for reform in Hollywood, in newsrooms and, apparently, in certain state capitals.

We also need to expand our concern beyond white-collar workplaces. Both the Huffington Post and the Washington Post have documented widespread harassment endured by hotel maids, waitresses and other women working in the service industry. Often, the harassment comes not from coworkers or supervisors, but from crude patrons and customers
.​

You have this backwards, we need to win elections, get back the government, implement laws to make sure we keep the government like improve the economy for the lower classes and deal with gerrymandering and voter suppression, after all that then, and only then, people like you need to demand specific solution to sexual harassment be implemented in law, instead of a nebulous "patriarchy", "toxic masculinity" and "rapeculture" that cost use votes by rallying a reactionary counter culture.
By "people like you", do you mean women?

Your post reeks of the whole 'let the men do the work' kind of rhetoric, that women fighting for their basic and fundamental human rights are often faced with.

Meanwhile, you won't win elections without women, even when you got back the Government, you did little to address these issues and what you did address, was simply overturned by the next government. You want to improve the economy, but you fail to notice or realise just how rape culture negatively impacts women economically. So who are you fixing the economy for? Some nebulous ideal of for 'your future generations'? Your 'children'? I mean, it can't be your female children, as you are more than willing to maintain a culture that will harm them. Meanwhile, the status quo is maintained, women will still earn less, they will continue to be harassed because your government will be more intent on winning, meaning even greater economic impacts for women..

More to the point, at what point do the fundamental human rights of over half your population start to matter enough to warrant some sort of action?

Now to win back the government a platform that spends as much time talking about sexual harassment and middle to upper class women's "issues" LOSES, it LOSES against even a disgusting moronic pig boar who grabs pussy and wants to fuck his own daughter! Ergo we need to talk about issues that actually matters to the electorate. Understand that poor uneducated women care more about jobs and a future for their children then if someone pinches their ass, that we would need to raise the median standard of living up dramatically for most women to find sexual harassment as an issue worthy of the highest political attention.
Do you mean you need to discuss issues that matter to the men, while dismissing issues that directly affect more than half of your population and will impact on their access to healthcare, education, employment, freedoms..

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/new...men-including-nonvictims-20170801-gxn9pi.html
http://www.southernct.edu/sexual-misconduct/facts.html
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...4/rape-culture-damage-it-does-everyday-sexism

Stop endorsing, condoning and excusing behaviour that harms millions of women. I mean sure, politics and whatnot. But you should keep in mind what it does to your "winning" when women stay home or don't vote for you and if your party takes it upon themselves to ignore women and to dismiss rape culture as you are doing here, then women will stay home.

And if you are silly enough to think that rape culture is only a middle class white women's issue, then you should take a look at how minorities are even bigger victims of it. And again, your party cannot win without women and it certainly cannot win without minority women.
 
Last edited:
Even in what you quoted, Ms Sommers demands that sexual harassment be graded, as though less severe cases are somehow more acceptable.
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?
 
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.

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?
 
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.
Oh certainly.

For example, a person who uses his position and in particular, position of trust, to grope and sexually harass women, as one example, should be fired immediately.

A man who molests children, as another example, belongs in prison.

Your objection to that is what, specifically?
The manner in which she dismisses what a lot of women experience and how it affects them, particularly in the workplace.

She fails to factor in the cost that what she classified as "lesser annoyances" is to women.

For example, as Ms Gilmore noted in August of this year, about how sexual violence, and what Ms Sommers would classify as a "lesser annoyance", is quite damaging to women:

While we expect women who have been victims of rape to suffer serious emotional and physiological injuries, the regular experience of what might sound like a minor incident is all too often met with the question "so nothing actually happened then?".

Anyone who asks that question, or even thinks it, doesn't understand the threat inherent in every manifestation of sexual violence.

Just recently, a woman I know was left alone in her workplace with a man she'd never met before. Almost immediately he was standing too close to her, asking questions about her life, talking about things he'd seen on her Facebook page, whether she was a feminist.

If you think this sounds innocuous, you're wrong. It wasn't. She was terrified.

He might have just been a slightly socially awkward guy trying to make conversation. Or he could have been a stalker with violent tendencies. There's really no way to tell the difference between them until it's too late, so as soon as she was put in that position, she had to start calculating the arithmetic of violence.

What is he really trying to do here? Do I smile and placate him, or will that add up to an invitation in his mind? Will it make me look weak? Will that encourage him or pacify him? If I go strong and demand he leaves, will that enrage him or deter him? What can I do that won't make him angry? What do I do if he does get angry? If I run will he chase me? Where do I go? How far is safety? What can I use to defend myself? Who can hear me if I scream? How will he react if I pick up my phone and text someone? What if I'm wrong and he tells everyone I'm freaky and paranoid? What if I'm right and he hurts me? If he tries to hurt me do I let him so he doesn't hurt me even more? How dare he make me feel like this, how angry will he get if he sees my anger?

This particular woman in this particular situation managed to make an excuse to leave the room, run to the next building and find a (male) colleague who had no difficulty throwing him out, and no fear at all of leaving work alone later that night.

Male friends of hers who knew the man told her afterwards that she had nothing to fear. "He's an idiot, but he's not a threat," they said with kindly reassuring smiles.

How do they know this? From their vast experience of being a physically small woman alone in a room with a him? From their deep understanding of the way threatening men behave towards women when no other men are around?

And here's where we get to the #NotAllMen fallacy. Because, of course, not all men are dangerous. But some men definitely are, and they look exactly like the men who aren't.

So what are women to do in that situation? If we assume he's not a threat and we're wrong, the consequences could be catastrophic. If we assume he is a threat and we're wrong, the consequences could be that we got away from a creepy conversation and the man in question is left a bit confused by our sudden departure.

I know which one I'd choose.

The continuum of sexual violence, which starts with so called "jokes", escalates through cat calling, stalking, grabbing, assault, and finishes with rape and murder.

Almost all women (nine out of 10 women in Australia) have experienced street harassment and many of them recognise it as an expression of power and entitlement.

Some women may well have the strength and confidence to shake it off, think of it as nothing more than a problem in the men who do it, not a problem for the women who are the targets of it.

But far too many women know the deeper reality of male violence. Millions of Australian women have been subjected to physical or sexual violence at some point in their lives. And all women who have been lucky enough to escape it themselves know women who haven't.

Almost all this violence was committed by men.

So it's not surprising that the implicit threat in any form of harassment is experienced by many women as the full threat. Nor is it surprising that this leads to depression and anxiety, as highlighted in the Journal of Public Health report.

Not every woman in our village has been tortured, but we all know at least one woman who has. It may not be all men, but it's difficult for all women to remain unafraid
.​

I mean, everyone understands that of course, different levels of crimes will be met with differing levels of punishment. I mean, that is pretty obvious. It is the manner in which she dismisses the 'lesser annoyances' when it comes to sexual harassment while ignoring what those actually do to women, that made me raise my eyebrows. To the one, she commented on it as though women are unable to tell the difference, but to the other, in dismissing the the most common forms of sexual harassment that women are faced with, as "lesser annoyances", she is also dismissing the harm even those small incidents do to women.

Sexual harassment is entrenched in rape culture. We can start curbing it by not deeming the smaller offenses as being merely "lesser annoyances".
 
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.

yes, YES! Someone gets it!

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.

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.
 
Wow..

It is as though she has been a member here for the past few weeks...

When people start to type IN ALL UPPER CAPS and end sentences as you did, it tends to show a level of lack of control of one's emotions and anger. In other words, you seem to be on the verge of something something. Perhaps cut back on the coffee?

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

I see your integration in misogynistic world of men's rights activism is now complete.

Why are you quoting right wing propaganda from Ms Sommers?

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.

Ms Sommers wrote a book where she blamed boys lack of academic achievements on women and feminism in particular. And I mean that literally.

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.

Even in what you quoted, Ms Sommers demands that sexual harassment be graded, as though less severe cases are somehow more acceptable. Do you agree with that assessment?

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

It's a shame that you failed to read down the article:

But even if we are not coping with an epidemic, we do still have a serious problem. There is a clear need for reform in Hollywood, in newsrooms and, apparently, in certain state capitals.

We also need to expand our concern beyond white-collar workplaces. Both the Huffington Post and the Washington Post have documented widespread harassment endured by hotel maids, waitresses and other women working in the service industry. Often, the harassment comes not from coworkers or supervisors, but from crude patrons and customers
.​

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?

By "people like you", do you mean women?

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!

Your post reeks of the whole 'let the men do the work' kind of rhetoric,

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.

that women fighting for their basic and fundamental human rights are often faced with.

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

Meanwhile, you won't win elections without women, even when you got back the Government, you did little to address these issues and what you did address, was simply overturned by the next government. You want to improve the economy, but you fail to notice or realise just how rape culture negatively impacts women economically.

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

So who are you fixing the economy for? Some nebulous ideal of for 'your future generations'? Your 'children'? I mean, it can't be your female children,

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.

as you are more than willing to maintain a culture that will harm them. Meanwhile, the status quo is maintained, women will still earn less, they will continue to be harassed because your government will be more intent on winning, meaning even greater economic impacts for women..

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?

More to the point, at what point do the fundamental human rights of over half your population start to matter enough to warrant some sort of action?

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

Do you mean you need to discuss issues that matter to the men, while dismissing issues that directly affect more than half of your population and will impact on their access to healthcare, education, employment, freedoms..

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/new...men-including-nonvictims-20170801-gxn9pi.html
http://www.southernct.edu/sexual-misconduct/facts.html
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...4/rape-culture-damage-it-does-everyday-sexism

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!

Stop endorsing, condoning and excusing behaviour that harms millions of women. I mean sure, politics and whatnot. But you should keep in mind what it does to your "winning" when women stay home or don't vote for you and if your party takes it upon themselves to ignore women and to dismiss rape culture as you are doing here, then women will stay home.

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.

And if you are silly enough to think that rape culture is only a middle class white women's issue, then you should take a look at how minorities are even bigger victims of it. And again, your party cannot win without women and it certainly cannot win without minority women.

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.
 
Problem being that someone can be accused, lose their career, have their lives ruined in the public eye... then be found completely "not guilty" and still be, effectively, unemployable because of public image.

*shrug* again, if we as a society are ok with that, that's fine - just want to make sure we're all on the same page here.
Same goes for people doing the accusing.
 
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?
 
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?
 
Last edited:
For example, a person who uses his position and in particular, position of trust, to grope and sexually harass women, as one example, should be fired immediately.
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.
The manner in which she dismisses what a lot of women experience and how it affects them, particularly in the workplace.
Don't change the subject. That's not in the quote at issue.
It is the manner in which she dismisses the 'lesser annoyances' when it comes to sexual harassment while ignoring what those actually do to women, that made me raise my eyebrows.
No doubt the woman speaking has many flaws of perception and analysis. But that wasn't the subject.
I mean, everyone understands that of course, different levels of crimes will be met with differing levels of punishment. I mean, that is pretty obvious.
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.
 
Edit: and where does this "falsely accuses" bit come from--are you even following any of this?

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.

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

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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top