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

[Kittamaru]

Ummmm... duh!

You... just answered yes to a question of "do you mean A or B"... are you saying Spidergoat meant both?

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

Ignorant as to what spidergoat was referring to?

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

It comes from the numerous instances of exactly this happening that I supplied here - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/pr...cs-of-rape-culture.160374/page-5#post-3494026

Alright, I'll be uncharacteristically charitable:

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

Probably because they were afraid of retaliation, that they would not get their day in court and instead wind up with their careers ruined because he had more money and power than they did, etc...?

Kind of what I've been saying is a key part of the whole problem here - that right now, the laws are not being equitably enforced, but instead favor those with wealth and power...?

 

[Bells]

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.

Oh great, you're back to the turducken style of argument... Colour me shocked.

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

No it wasn't. I had meant "linked", not quoted and amended that post accordingly.

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

And of course you need to tell me what the subject is.

As I noted, I realised my error and had typed "quoted" instead of "linked".

Her grading of sexual harassment resulted in sexual harassment in some instances being labeled as just "lesser annoyances". I hope that clears up any confusion that you might have.

I actually address this point here:

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

You know, the part you chose to ignore.

Because even minor offenses can have a detrimental affect.

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.

I believe we can tell the difference. I think the issue arises when partisan politics comes into play. I do believe that the belief that one can grope a woman stems from misogyny and it is a serious character flaw.

 

[Bells]

because women are people and people lie? Should I give examples of falsely accuse? I would but Bells says they are not prescient.

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.

Most of us believe deep down that women can't be trusted

There are some understandable reasons why law enforcement officials, for instance, tend not to believe victims who come forward about rape.

We are only just beginning to understand the scienceof how the brain processes trauma. Memories are stored in a fragmented way, and emotional reactions can seem "off." Both of these things can raise suspicions among police officers who are accustomed to using rigorous interrogations to ferret out inconsistencies in a story, and rigorous interrogation only makes things worse.

But there's clearly something deeper going on when a police department calls its sex crimes investigative division the "lying bitch unit."

And law enforcement officials aren't the only ones who don't believe rape victims. Too often, entire communities turn againstsurvivors of sexual assault who come forward.

The idea that women are inherently deceitful, especially when it comes to sexuality, is deeply rooted in our culture. Soraya Chemaly has written extensively about the ways we teach our children that women are liars.

Our pop culture and religious teachings alike are fraughtwith descriptions of women as untrustworthy — from Eve and the apple to Gossip Girl. Teenagers and police officers alike radically overestimate the number of women who lie about rape. This has real consequences in nearly every walk of life, Chemaly writes:

Women's credibility is questioned in the workplace, in courts, in legislatures, by law enforcement, in doctors' offices and in our political system. People don't trust women … not to be bosses, pilots, employees. Last year, a survey of managers in the United States revealed that they overwhelmingly don't believe women who request flextime. Until relatively recently, in order to hedge against the idea that women lie, many U.S. police departments had "corroboration requirements" for rape reports, unlike any other crime. Pakistan's controversial Hudood Ordinance still requires a female rape victim to procure four male witnesses to her rape or risk prosecution for adultery.​

Damon Young of Very Smart Brothas wrote about how the Cosby situation made him realize that he didn't truly trust his wife, and that most men don't trust women. He said he trusts her not to cheat and to be a good partner, and he trusts her opinions on important things:

But you know what I don’t really trust? What I’ve never actually trusted with any women I’ve been with? Her feelings.

If she approaches me pissed about something, my first reaction is "What’s wrong?"

My typical second reaction? Before she even gets the opportunity to tell me what’s wrong? "She’s probably overreacting."​

Female hysteria is another deeply rooted gender stereotype, and it tells us that women can't even be trusted to know their own feelings. These stereotypes cause doctors to ignore women's symptoms of pain, and they inspire lawmakers to pass abortion waiting periods because they don't think women consider their decision carefully enough. Meanwhile, men are perceived as smarter and more authoritative than women.

Our society, which is less separable than we'd like from the cruder societies that came before it, has created a perfect storm of reasons to dismiss rape victims.

A woman can't be trusted to know her own feelings, which means she either secretly wanted sex while saying she didn't, or wanted it at the time but changed her mind afterward.

A woman isn't her own person, not really — so it matters less that believing him means disbelieving her.

A woman can't be trusted not to lie, so it's safer to disbelieve her than to risk ruining some innocent fellow's life.

And men are the ones with money, social status, and something to lose, so they are the real stakeholders in any rape case.

Rape is horrifying and messy, and sometimes it's easier to disbelieve that it happens at all. But that option isn't open to victims of rape and sexual assault.

Denying rape means believing that victims are lying. It means denying their humanity and worth. And it's a denial that has been made far too easy by thousands of years of habit.
[Source]​

We could of course look at what can happen to rape victims because of people refuse to believe them, particularly when the person being accused is someone who is rich and powerful. Or the fact that false rape accusations are prodigiously rare, but that would just rain on your parade. Or the horror of campus rape, where victims are blamed, accused and treated like criminals because hey, women lie, right? It's easier to push the due process line.. Too bad the victims don't get the same consideration.

 

[Bells]

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.

You are a part of the problem.

There is a lot of literature that details why victims do not report to the police. The most glaring is because of how the police treat the victims and some deliberately protect the accused, some tank investigations on purpose, some rape victims are treated like they are the criminals. For example:

According to a 2000 study by the Department of Justice, fewer than 5% of college women who suffered completed or attempted rapes reported it to law enforcement. Almost a quarter of rape victims who did not report said they were afraid of being treated with hostility. Twenty-seven percent said they thought the police wouldn't think it was serious enough.​

These worries are, unfortunately, well-founded. Research by Wayne State University's Debra Patterson backs up prior studies indicating up to half of all rape victims are treated by the police in ways that cause secondary victimization. Even more extreme incidents still occur, like an inspector general's report that concluded five New Orleans detectives on the special victims unit improperly failed to pursue all but 14% of 1,290 sex crimesassigned to them.​

It's often referred to as 'second rape'.

 

[Bells]

It comes from the numerous instances of exactly this happening that I supplied here - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/pr...cs-of-rape-culture.160374/page-5#post-3494026

False accusations of rape are exceptionally rare.

By relying on that repeatedly and trying to make it a bigger problem than it actually is, it further perpetuates the myth that these victims are lying, or sets a belief that victims cannot be trusted. And it is often used to try to silence victims.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/r...s/news-story/36e11c8db4052604a7bc02c96842b356

https://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=297

Please stop repeating this frankly dangerous myth.

 

[birch]

Most of us believe deep down that women can't be trusted

There are some understandable reasons why law enforcement officials, for instance, tend not to believe victims who come forward about rape.

We are only just beginning to understand the scienceof how the brain processes trauma. Memories are stored in a fragmented way, and emotional reactions can seem "off." Both of these things can raise suspicions among police officers who are accustomed to using rigorous interrogations to ferret out inconsistencies in a story, and rigorous interrogation only makes things worse.

But there's clearly something deeper going on when a police department calls its sex crimes investigative division the "lying bitch unit."

And law enforcement officials aren't the only ones who don't believe rape victims. Too often, entire communities turn againstsurvivors of sexual assault who come forward.

The idea that women are inherently deceitful, especially when it comes to sexuality, is deeply rooted in our culture. Soraya Chemaly has written extensively about the ways we teach our children that women are liars.

Our pop culture and religious teachings alike are fraughtwith descriptions of women as untrustworthy — from Eve and the apple to Gossip Girl. Teenagers and police officers alike radically overestimate the number of women who lie about rape. This has real consequences in nearly every walk of life, Chemaly writes:

Women's credibility is questioned in the workplace, in courts, in legislatures, by law enforcement, in doctors' offices and in our political system. People don't trust women … not to be bosses, pilots, employees. Last year, a survey of managers in the United States revealed that they overwhelmingly don't believe women who request flextime. Until relatively recently, in order to hedge against the idea that women lie, many U.S. police departments had "corroboration requirements" for rape reports, unlike any other crime. Pakistan's controversial Hudood Ordinance still requires a female rape victim to procure four male witnesses to her rape or risk prosecution for adultery.​

Damon Young of Very Smart Brothas wrote about how the Cosby situation made him realize that he didn't truly trust his wife, and that most men don't trust women. He said he trusts her not to cheat and to be a good partner, and he trusts her opinions on important things:

But you know what I don’t really trust? What I’ve never actually trusted with any women I’ve been with? Her feelings.

If she approaches me pissed about something, my first reaction is "What’s wrong?"

My typical second reaction? Before she even gets the opportunity to tell me what’s wrong? "She’s probably overreacting."​

Female hysteria is another deeply rooted gender stereotype, and it tells us that women can't even be trusted to know their own feelings. These stereotypes cause doctors to ignore women's symptoms of pain, and they inspire lawmakers to pass abortion waiting periods because they don't think women consider their decision carefully enough. Meanwhile, men are perceived as smarter and more authoritative than women.

Our society, which is less separable than we'd like from the cruder societies that came before it, has created a perfect storm of reasons to dismiss rape victims.

A woman can't be trusted to know her own feelings, which means she either secretly wanted sex while saying she didn't, or wanted it at the time but changed her mind afterward.

A woman isn't her own person, not really — so it matters less that believing him means disbelieving her.

A woman can't be trusted not to lie, so it's safer to disbelieve her than to risk ruining some innocent fellow's life.

And men are the ones with money, social status, and something to lose, so they are the real stakeholders in any rape case.

Rape is horrifying and messy, and sometimes it's easier to disbelieve that it happens at all. But that option isn't open to victims of rape and sexual assault.

Denying rape means believing that victims are lying. It means denying their humanity and worth. And it's a denial that has been made far too easy by thousands of years of habit.
[Source]​

We could of course look at what can happen to rape victims because of people refuse to believe them, particularly when the person being accused is someone who is rich and powerful. Or the fact that false rape accusations are prodigiously rare, but that would just rain on your parade. Or the horror of campus rape, where victims are blamed, accused and treated like criminals because hey, women lie, right? It's easier to push the due process line.. Too bad the victims don't get the same consideration.

that article is spot-on. the ugly truth really hurts. it's also an intentional way of dismissing a crime borne of patriarchy since most of law enforcement are men and even many women are taught to devalue other women. ironicly, when women do not believe other women, it's similar to matriarchy but borne of seeing other women as competition. neither patriarchy or matriarchy are good as it's unbalanced. neither should have the upperhand.

for instance, when i reported my abuse to law enforcement and also made it know to the church the accused was a member of, one of my uncles who had molested me as a child outrageously and even angrily insinuated i may be lying, even knowing what he did ( he was not the accused in this case, just defending the accused in some indirect way).

i know that psychologically, this is a tactic to deflect guilt back onto the victim so the perpetrator does not have to take responsiblilty or even face the ugly truth of what they did or simply the 'ugliness' within themselves because it bruises their ego so it makes them angry, especially if they have come to a point of self-entitlement or believe they are.

there is also the additional idea that abusers like to rationalize that it's others that tempt them or made them feel that way to do what they did etc, so every part of the guilt is projected onto the victim.

also, at this point i was an outcast or at a very low point in society so this further gave them ammunition and leverage. this is because people like this think in whatever conventional ways or memes that benefit them, even if knowing themselves that just because someone is not part of the mainstream or is well-respected ( as in higher position in life), they will use that opportunity to discredit you just the same.

 

[ElectricFetus]

You are a part of the problem.

There is a lot of literature that details why victims do not report to the police. The most glaring is because of how the police treat the victims and some deliberately protect the accused, some tank investigations on purpose, some rape victims are treated like they are the criminals. For example:

According to a 2000 study by the Department of Justice, fewer than 5% of college women who suffered completed or attempted rapes reported it to law enforcement. Almost a quarter of rape victims who did not report said they were afraid of being treated with hostility. Twenty-seven percent said they thought the police wouldn't think it was serious enough.​

These worries are, unfortunately, well-founded. Research by Wayne State University's Debra Patterson backs up prior studies indicating up to half of all rape victims are treated by the police in ways that cause secondary victimization. Even more extreme incidents still occur, like an inspector general's report that concluded five New Orleans detectives on the special victims unit improperly failed to pursue all but 14% of 1,290 sex crimesassigned to them.​

It's often referred to as 'second rape'.

During a debriefing with Gillibrand’s staff after Monday’s press conference, a few of us shared our concerns about promoting the exclusive use of the prison industrial complex to address rape. In response, one of the survivors felt compelled to state that she believed that rape is a violent crime and should be treated as such. I think it is important for me to say that I am in no way advocating that survivors should never report. Nor I do I believe that it is wrong that rape is considered a crime in our society (despite the reason it started to be considered a crime having very patriarchal origins). What I am saying is that we need to respect individual survivors and their decisions in this very personal, difficult process. Just as pro-choice advocates call on legislators to “trust women,” I advocate for us to trust survivors of violence. Why can’t we trust women (and survivors of all identities) to know what is the best way for them to heal?

Ok so if you don't want your rapist sent to prison, don't report, well that is your choice, just leave him be I guess, so what is the alternative?

Look the justice system is not nice, it is not fun, what did you expect? You are going to report someone for a serious crime they are going to want evidence, they are going to want a testimony and then integration to check your story. You give me the alternative you want: to random accuse a man years later outside the law? Persecute him with an army of online harassers? Strip him of a career and respectability on mere accusations? Do you not know such an alternative can, has and is abused to this day? Do you want to watch a video of a women stoned to death on mere accusation that she is a witch?

 

[birch]

their idea of life seems to be to get to a position of power to fool the public as to who they are to gain adoration or respect and to use whatever means to disempower or destroy any who speak the truth. unfortunately, my whole family has this nature. i think many scum do rise to the top or to some position of money, respect and power to even fool those in the same level that are not scum and i am not exaggerating they are scum disguised.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Most of us believe deep down that women can't be trusted

​

​

I don't trust people, period, full stop, I don't even trust my self, I have been abducted by aliens as a teenager, repeatedly, don't believe it really happened though. Why would I have a standard of trust for any other human I don't even have for my self?

As for women not believe/trusted deep down: be a male, bring up times you were sexual harassed, anyone believe me, nope. If I, as an adult human wanted justice, not trust, justice, I would go to the police, press charges, and deal with the justice system "second raping" me.

 

[parmalee]

There is a lot of literature that details why victims do not report to the police.

And this literature has been quoted and linked at least a hundred times (a conservative estimate), just within the past two weeks.

We can only conclude from this that EF and Kittamaru are either profoundly stupid, suffer from poor reading comprehension, or are willfully maintaining this pretense of ignorance, for reasons not entirely clear (though, were I to hazard a guess, a deep seated misogynistic outlook would seem to lie at the root of their motivations). I'm sure there are other possibilities, I simply don't know what they are.

Surely Kitt's junior high "analyses"--Animal Farm and the trolley example: seriously?!--aren't the best he can do? Or, are they? I've long lamented the demise of critical thinking skills amongst millenials--no fault of their own, mind (at least, not entirely). Rather, they've largely abandoned the pursuit of Liberal Arts degrees for quite sensible reasons (employment prospects, etc.), but the cost for these decisions will be felt for decades. STEM subjects simply do not teach people how to read critically, and that is simply terrifying.

Honestly, were this discussion to be had with patients with advanced stages of dementia or Alzheimer's, I'm not altogether convinced that their responses would differ all that significantly from EF's and Kitt's.

 

[ElectricFetus]

And this literature has been quoted and linked at least a hundred times (a conservative estimate), just within the past two weeks.

We can only conclude from this that EF and Kittamaru are either profoundly stupid, suffer from poor reading comprehension, or are willfully maintaining this pretense of ignorance, for reasons not entirely clear (though, were I to hazard a guess, a deep seated misogynistic outlook would seem to lie at the root of their motivations). I'm sure there are other possibilities, I simply don't know what they are.

Surely Kitt's junior high "analyses"--Animal Farm and the trolley example: seriously?!--aren't the best he can do? Or, are they? I've long lamented the demise of critical thinking skills amongst millenials--no fault of their own, mind (at least, not entirely). Rather, they've largely abandoned the pursuit of Liberal Arts degrees for quite sensible reasons (employment prospects, etc.), but the cost for these decisions will be felt for decades. STEM subjects simply do not teach people how to read critically, and that is simply terrifying.

Honestly, were this discussion to be had with patients with advanced stages of dementia or Alzheimer's, I'm not altogether convinced that their responses would differ all that significantly from EF's and Kitt's.

Yeah yeah slander. What do you want done about sexual assault?

We are advocating that accusation via social media and punishment via internet harassment is not justice, is not moral and can and is to be used by our political enemies.

Your side only counter argues by calling us misogynistic (despite it is you and your ilk that want to treat women like children!) and stupid, and advocate no viable solution, and spout a rapeculture ideology that is on par with the republican's "War on Christmas" in nebulousness and un-falsifiablity.

 

[Bells]

And this literature has been quoted and linked at least a hundred times (a conservative estimate), just within the past two weeks.

We can only conclude from this that EF and Kittamaru are either profoundly stupid, suffer from poor reading comprehension, or are willfully maintaining this pretense of ignorance, for reasons not entirely clear (though, were I to hazard a guess, a deep seated misogynistic outlook would seem to lie at the root of their motivations). I'm sure there are other possibilities, I simply don't know what they are.

Surely Kitt's junior high "analyses"--Animal Farm and the trolley example: seriously?!--aren't the best he can do? Or, are they? I've long lamented the demise of critical thinking skills amongst millenials--no fault of their own, mind (at least, not entirely). Rather, they've largely abandoned the pursuit of Liberal Arts degrees for quite sensible reasons (employment prospects, etc.), but the cost for these decisions will be felt for decades. STEM subjects simply do not teach people how to read critically, and that is simply terrifying.

Honestly, were this discussion to be had with patients with advanced stages of dementia or Alzheimer's, I'm not altogether convinced that their responses would differ all that significantly from EF's and Kitt's.

You have absolutely no disagreement from me there.

I am only sorry that I could only 'like' your post once.

There is a lot of literature that addresses why some men react this way. The constant referral to false accusations, despite that being so rare, is an attempt to silence discussions. It is a myth, and basically reads like a conspiracy, that these women are somehow or other out to get these men based on lies and slander, and it is repeated in just about every rape case and sexual abuse case and sexual harassment case. This is particularly the case when individuals like politicians are accused. It becomes solely partisan. When it pertains to politics, we immediately see discussions about due process, which led me to ask 'due process for whom' at one point these last few weeks, because victims are rarely afforded due process. Most importantly, by switching the narrative to false rape accusations, it deliberately changes the narrative to 'women lie', ergo, the women making these accusations are lying.

I don't think it is an issue of poor reading comprehension or that they are stupid. I do think it is deliberate. Tragically, what they have been saying here, is what rape victims experience when they report it.

that article is spot-on. the ugly truth really hurts. it's also an intentional way of dismissing a crime borne of patriarchy since most of law enforcement are men and even many women are taught to devalue other women. ironicly, when women do not believe other women, it's similar to matriarchy but borne of seeing other women as competition. neither patriarchy or matriarchy are good as it's unbalanced. neither should have the upperhand.

for instance, when i reported my abuse to law enforcement and also made it know to the church the accused was a member of, one of my uncles who had molested me as a child outrageously and even angrily insinuated i may be lying, even knowing what he did ( he was not the accused in this case, just defending the accused in some indirect way).

i know that psychologically, this is a tactic to deflect guilt back onto the victim so the perpetrator does not have to take responsiblilty or even face the ugly truth of what they did or simply the 'ugliness' within themselves because it bruises their ego so it makes them angry, especially if they have come to a point of self-entitlement or believe they are.

there is also the additional idea that abusers like to rationalize that it's others that tempt them or made them feel that way to do what they did etc, so every part of the guilt is projected onto the victim.

also, at this point i was an outcast or at a very low point in society so this further gave them ammunition and leverage. this is because people like this think in whatever conventional ways or memes that benefit them, even if knowing themselves that just because someone is not part of the mainstream or is well-respected ( as in higher position in life), they will use that opportunity to discredit you just the same.

It is to protect the status quo. And the intent is to silence victims.

Perpetuating the myth that women lie and by repeatedly referring to those rare cases of false accusations, it sets the tone, that these women cannot and should not be believed.

It is one of the reasons why rape is so under-reported, and why prosecutors fail to prosecute these cases. In some instances, the police will deliberately tank the investigation or close it citing lack of evidence, despite there being so much evidence. In my case, they refused to prosecute because I had worked as a prosecutor, citing vested interest and being a bad look publicly if they did pursue it. When the police first arrived at my house, I was asked if I was sure I had been raped, I was asked about what I had done to perhaps set this off (I was asleep on my couch while suffering from the flu when my brother in law broke into my house and raped me in my own family room)..

What you experienced is abhorrent. No one should have to go through that. I think it was pjdude who also experienced something similar. It isn't acceptable and it is a failure of society that this keeps happening to victims of sexual violence.

Sadly, this is common, particularly in small communities, where the woman is touted as being the liar, as being dishonest and they will often track back to your previous behaviour to try to show just how dishonest you may have been. And people like EF make comments about how if women want to be taken seriously, they should report it straight away. It is such a dangerous narrative, because it completely ignores what women experience when they do report it and it ignores the reason why women do not come forward and sometimes wait years to decades before they feel strong enough to speak out.

There is a reason why they refer to it as 'second rape', because it is yet another violation for victims. And seeing people like EF argue that women would only be trusted if they report it immediately, well, it's yet another myth and harks back that these women cannot and should not be taken seriously, because we fail to act as some expect us to. It is deeply misogynistic and only works to protect rape culture and ultimately, the abusers.

 

[iceaura]

The puzzle facing me, meanwhile, is why the self-described holders of high moral ground cannot post honestly and without slander in response to my posting here.
Latest example:

Oh great, you're back to the turducken style of argument... Colour me shocked.

Dishonest. (the "back to", the "style", and the "turducken" are all lies).
You substitute personal attack for argument. In this way you avoid dealing honestly with issues - which would require you to face your incoherence, and abandonment of reason.

No it wasn't. I had meant "linked", not quoted and amended that post accordingly.

Yes, it was.
The subject was as given in my post - quote and response. Not Ms Sommers. None of the rest of that is relevant.
You changed the subject of my post, when pretending to respond to it. You do that a lot.
That's dishonest.

And of course you need to tell me what the subject is.

The subject of my posts, yes, of course. Normally in a discussion forum one could count on literacy and the posts themselves - not rocket science. But with you one must insist, repeat, correct you over and over and over - you continually lie, slander, and misrepresent, and correcting your lies, slanders, and misrepresentations is a never-ending battle. The bulk of my posting here has been devoted to labeling and sometimes correcting your lies, slanders, and misrepresentations.
And the only interesting question remaining is why - why you are unable to post honestly in this matter, post without slander, post without misrepresention.

Her grading of sexual harassment resulted in sexual harassment in some instances being labeled as just "lesser annoyances". I hope that clears up any confusion that you might have.

Dishonest.

I believe we can tell the difference.

So do I - but that has not prevented you from refusing to do so.

I think the issue arises when partisan politics comes into play.

Not here.
You've always been wrong about that here, and been corrected several times (at one point I believe you stated as fact that I would judge Franken's guilt differently if he were Republican, for example, which was just stupid), but since the only reason it came up was you slandering and misrepresenting to dodge an argument, being wrong hardly matters. It's you dodging an issue - the entire doing of that is in the wrong.

I do believe that the belief that one can grope a woman stems from misogyny and it is a serious character flaw.

Dishonest.
How? Look at what that responded to, allegedly: "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." wtf?
You cannot post honestly in this thread. You simply cannot do it. Do you have any idea why that is?

 

[Kittamaru]

And this literature has been quoted and linked at least a hundred times (a conservative estimate), just within the past two weeks.

We can only conclude from this that EF and Kittamaru are either profoundly stupid, suffer from poor reading comprehension, or are willfully maintaining this pretense of ignorance, for reasons not entirely clear (though, were I to hazard a guess, a deep seated misogynistic outlook would seem to lie at the root of their motivations). I'm sure there are other possibilities, I simply don't know what they are.

Surely Kitt's junior high "analyses"--Animal Farm and the trolley example: seriously?!--aren't the best he can do? Or, are they? I've long lamented the demise of critical thinking skills amongst millenials--no fault of their own, mind (at least, not entirely). Rather, they've largely abandoned the pursuit of Liberal Arts degrees for quite sensible reasons (employment prospects, etc.), but the cost for these decisions will be felt for decades. STEM subjects simply do not teach people how to read critically, and that is simply terrifying.

Honestly, were this discussion to be had with patients with advanced stages of dementia or Alzheimer's, I'm not altogether convinced that their responses would differ all that significantly from EF's and Kitt's.

What gets me is that my entire premise is that this exact issue you are stating (that victims have reason to feel they cannot report) is what needs fixed... And somehow, you think that insulting me is somehow helpful that along.

Positively mind boggling... It is this kind of attitude that makes the entire movement appear ridiculous to so many; attack anyone who dares have a differing view or opinion or idea... Yeah, and look how little has been accomplished in terms of actually fixing this broken ass system...

I guess y'all really do want vigilante justice, then? Cause, yeah, that's gonna end well...

 

[parmalee]

False accusations of rape are exceptionally rare.

By relying on that repeatedly and trying to make it a bigger problem than it actually is, it further perpetuates the myth that these victims are lying, or sets a belief that victims cannot be trusted. And it is often used to try to silence victims.

Kitt and EF also seem to be ignoring that most of these accusations--esp. the ones which have been reported upon by journalists--have been bolstered by corroboration by parties known to the victim, i.e., friends and acquaintances have confirmed that the victim had told them about the incidents at the time. That's kinda basic journalistic procedure, as most journalists are concerned about their own reputations and credibility as journalists.

Of course, their tendency to completely ignore this aspect serves only to bolster the notion that they are doing such deliberately.

What continues to elude me here is the "why": does their misogyny run so deep that it renders them wholly incapable of rational and honest discourse?

This is one of those things for which I possess an intellectual understanding, but I feel that I will never have any sort of visceral, intuitive understanding.

 

[birch]

It is to protect the status quo. And the intent is to silence victims.

Perpetuating the myth that women lie and by repeatedly referring to those rare cases of false accusations, it sets the tone, that these women cannot and should not be believed.

my mother blamed me and not just insinuated but outrightly accused me of tempting her husband which was mindnumblingly revolting, insulting and insane considering i could not stand her husband at all. that is also common for some mothers to blame their daughters or to not be believed. she definitely did not deny privately because she well knew how her husband was but she did deny it publicly. it is gross and difficult to understand that there are women who would want to stay with a man who abused their daughter but who can understand the full disgusting nature of what people are capable of.

i would drop any person (male or female) who even slightly disrespected my child.

 

[Bells]

Dishonest. (the "back to", the "style", and the "turducken" are all lies).
You substitute personal attack for argument. In this way you avoid dealing honestly with issues - which would require you to face your incoherence, and abandonment of reason.

Well, let's see, you took a response I made to someone out of context and then referred back to an utterly ridiculous example - that was ridiculous the first time you brought it up in the other thread, and is equally ridiculous now.. In other words, when you present something that is completely dishonest and frankly so silly that I can barely wrap my head around how anyone could come up with something like that, of course you are going to view any response to your dishonest and ridiculous argument as being "dishonest".

These questions were answered multiple times, and you just refuse to accept what my answer was, and you are still doing it.

Yes, it was.
The subject was as given in my post - quote and response. Not Ms Sommers. None of the rest of that is relevant.
You changed the subject of my post, when pretending to respond to it. You do that a lot.
That's dishonest.

I addressed one thing, you demand that I answer to something else, I advise that I had meant "linked" instead of quote. And now you are telling me that what I was actually talking about (and then advised my own error) is not what I was talking about and that the subject of your post (which was directly quoting what I had said mind you) was not answered and that I had changed the subject, despite my not having done that.

Put simply, what is it you want to talk about? Because at present, you are taking my words out of context, applying a different subject to them (to the point that my direct comments which were originally aimed at what Sommers had said is apparently not what I was talking about and that you seem to be discussing something else entirely).

You asked me what my objection was to what she said (in the article that EF linked). I answered it directly and explained why her comments were dangerous. Now you are saying that I was apparently answering to something else entirely.

The subject of my posts, yes, of course. Normally in a discussion forum one could count on literacy and the posts themselves - not rocket science. But with you one must insist, repeat, correct you over and over and over - you continually lie, slander, and misrepresent, and correcting your lies, slanders, and misrepresentations is a never-ending battle. The bulk of my posting here has been devoted to labeling and sometimes correcting your lies, slanders, and misrepresentations.
And the only interesting question remaining is why - why you are unable to post honestly in this matter, post without slander, post without misrepresention.

Well you need to be clearer. Because I was responding to something EF had posted and said. You applied a different context and narrative to that and now you seem to be accusing me of dishonesty, after linking what I said to EF and it seems, in your mind, you seem to think I am aware of what you are thinking.

So I ask again, what are you on about?

So do I - but that has not prevented you from refusing to do so.

But I do know what I am on about. Sadly, I don't have my x-ray goggles that can read your mind across the Pacific Ocean, so when you respond to something I said to EF about what he linked, and you apply it to something else entirely, and then expect me to answer for it, those lack of goggles makes it a tad difficult for me to know what you are actually demanding I answer to.

When you take it upon yourself, based on whatever it is you are on about, to try to lecture me about telling the difference, frankly, it's kind of laughable really.

Not here.
You've always been wrong about that here, and been corrected several times (at one point I believe you stated as fact that I would judge Franken's guilt differently if he were Republican, for example, which was just stupid), but since the only reason it came up was you slandering and misrepresenting to dodge an argument, being wrong hardly matters. It's you dodging an issue - the entire doing of that is in the wrong.

Is this why I have seen you rail constantly about the accusations against Trump, for example, when people expressed belief that he is guilty of sexual harassment.....?

Nope, not a word from you there. It seems you were only interested when the subject was Franken. I noted that the issue has become quite partisan, where both sides are throwing down for their preferred candidates/people, for the sake of politics. That was my initial comment in the Roy Moore thread. You seemed to take offense to that, because apparently Franken belongs in a different category. Okay..?

So? And?

You think I am always wrong? Okay. You are free to your opinions.

Dishonest.

So I don't really think that a man who gropes multiple women and his beliefs that he can do it stems from misogyny? Okay then. Thank you for clearing that up for me!

How? Look at what that responded to, allegedly: "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." wtf?
You cannot post honestly in this thread. You simply cannot do it. Do you have any idea why that is?

And my answer to that stands. You can "wtf" all you want.

Soooo glad we got to have this chat, yet again, because the dozens of times we have gone over this repeatedly was so much fun that I was feeling like something was missing from my life.

 

[parmalee]

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a good and easy way to lodge these accusations - but right now, people are being damned from the moment the accusation is made, regardless of if it has any truth to it. That's a problem.

Bullshit.

There were plenty of "accusations" and rumors surround Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, and Louis CK for years. And they carried on with their business, they had not been "damned" by any stretch of the definition.

Rather, when the New York Times, and other media, reported detailed investigations--with names of the accusers (multiple accusers), and corroboration by countless individuals who know the accusers--then, and only then, were there "consequences." Weinstein has raped countless women, Spacey molested underage teens and harassed and assaulted countless male cohorts (so much for EF's bullshit contention that no one care about the male victims)--and what were the consequences? Are they in prison? Have they lost "everything"? Or did they simply retreat to a high end spa-like rehab facility? Is that your definition of "damned"?

Stop trolling. Learn how to read. Elevate your discourse above the junior high level.

Otherwise, stop wasting our time and embarrassing yourself.

 

[parmalee]

What gets me is that my entire premise is that this exact issue you are stating (that victims have reason to feel they cannot report) is what needs fixed... And somehow, you think that insulting me is somehow helpful that along.

And yet, strangely, you seemed not able to comprehend precisely why victims were reluctant to report, just a few posts up (your bizarre response to Spidergoat).

So am I to presume that you now an adequate understanding of this, after what... a couple of hours? Or are you simply continuing to troll, and effectively securing your position as the deeply misogynistic moderator?

 

[Bells]

What gets me is that my entire premise is that this exact issue you are stating (that victims have reason to feel they cannot report) is what needs fixed... And somehow, you think that insulting me is somehow helpful that along.

And women do not report, because they will inevitably be faced with individuals such as yourself, what with your ranting about trolley's and sacrificing the few for the many when it comes to rape culture and addressing it, when you immediately start talking about false accusations, when you start dropping in comments about how men need outlets and snide comments about the biological urge to procreate, and then the whining about how you are losing something something in regards to politics.

In other words, Kitta, you do not get to complain about what needs to be fixed, when you espouse ideology that points directly to an utterly broken system.

For example:

Positively mind boggling... It is this kind of attitude that makes the entire movement appear ridiculous to so many; attack anyone who dares have a differing view or opinion or idea... Yeah, and look how little has been accomplished in terms of actually fixing this broken ass system...

It's shit like this, that results in our not taking you seriously and questioning what your motives are here.

To wit, when you whine about the system, and then belittle those protesting against said system because we dared to take your repeated condoning of rape culture at face value, then it just makes you look somewhat frantic.

An example of this condoning of rape culture, despite the volume of literature out there and posted in these threads to try to educate you about how dangerous your stance here, is met with:

I guess y'all really do want vigilante justice, then? Cause, yeah, that's gonna end well...

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a good and easy way to lodge these accusations - but right now, people are being damned from the moment the accusation is made, regardless of if it has any truth to it. That's a problem.

Now, consider that you said that second quoted section, to a rape survivor who has detailed, several times on this forum, just how she was treated and not believed because of the kinds of attitudes you have espoused in this thread..

So no, you don't get to complain about the "broken ass system", when you take your whole self and stomp on it each time people try to address it and doing so by making these frankly obscene comments, in particular to a victim who has detailed just how she survived it.