Rape Academy

[TheVat]

why are we so protective of the rights and safety of men who might or might not be guilty of assault, rape and murder, at the expense of the rights and safety of women who are actually being assaulted, raped and murdered?

This is a leading question. Who is advocating protecting people's rights to due process at the expense of a vulnerable group?? Indeed, improving due process and the legal system might mean better outcomes for women, and ensure that deserved prosecution happens.

 

[w1z4rd]

And god forbid someone's name should be abused.

Recall why this exists: because actual women are being bullied, predated, assaulted and raped.

You see the problem, yes?

Why do we have more concern about having someone's name dragged through the mud than we do about an actual human being beaten?

I absolutely see the problem, but this is not a solution that will make things better, it will make things worse... it will just create more victims, not less.

Again, I 100% agree with you, many men are pigs and treat woman horribly. Unmoderated mob vigilante justice is not the solution.

 

[exchemist]

I'm starting to understand the female point of view now.

The social breakdown of which you speak implies a current social structure that de facto supports abuse and rape of women. In light of that, why would we NOT want to break it down?

Or, look at it another way: why are we so protective of the rights and safety of men who might or might not be guilty of assault, rape and murder, at the expense of the rights and safety of women who are actually being assaulted, raped and murdered?

The wider point is the one TheVat makes about the consequences of abandoning the rule of law. Because that is what this approach does.

If the law doesn't do the job, the answer is to make the law work better for raped women, not to abandon it and institute mob rule.

In fact, it is easy to see what will happen. Men who are "outed" in this way will react, accusing the women of all manner of things. Vitriolic on-line language will ensue, extreme "tribal" positions will be taken up, and stalking and the formation of gangs bent on retribution and violence will result all round. That is what I mean by social breakdown.

 

[DaveC426913]

The wider point is the one TheVat makes about the consequences of abandoning the rule of law. Because that is what this approach does.

Well for starters, raising this to the level of law is jumping over a lot of intermediate steps.

By loose analogy, there are a thousand ways citizens can take action to reduce pollution, waste and environmental damage that do not involve the courts passing laws against emmisions from factories.

If the law doesn't do the job, the answer is to make the law work better for raped women, not to abandon it and institute mob rule.

No need to take it all the way to the level of mob rule. That is the fallacy of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

In fact, it is easy to see what will happen. Men who are "outed" in this way will react, accusing the women of all manner of things.

They are currently being beaten, sexually assaulted, raped and murdered.

The only thing that not outing the men does is protect the men.

Vitriolic on-line language will ensue, extreme "tribal" positions will be taken up, and stalking and the formation of gangs bent on retribution and violence will result all round. That is what I mean by social breakdown.

Which is somehow worse than rape and murder?

The social structure preserves men's names from being dragged through the mud, while institutionalizing womens physical bodies being dragged through the mud.

 

[C C]

To expand out to the general source of this activity arena and then narrow back in...

As some op-eds explore, these various fetish games that the sex industry develops, refines, and encourages addiction to (particularly the roleplaying ones revolving around pretend violence or mistreatment) are also inherently loaded with the potential to backfire or jump the rails in later years. Due to one spouse or partner developing life-changes and more cognitive discernment ability as they mature, or perhaps more commonplace paranoia (or rarely, fueled by mere petty grudges slash get-even-ism). "Did he/she/they actually manipulate me back then into having sex with their friends for those cuckold (or cuckquean) videos? Maybe I really didn't do that out of my own free will. It could have been psychologically stealthy, orchestrated abuse..."

Which is to say, anyone who ventures into that crazy domain of either porn profits and/or personal discovery is mildly risking setting themselves up in the future for accusations whose consequences range from social shunning to criminal prosecution or, at the very least, public scandal. And if the fetish cravings are limited to one individual in the household or relationship, then the other person might be advised to warily keep an eye on whatever genre the former he/she/they is regularly browsing on porn sites and forums to see if it involves "sleep or non-conscious victims".
_

 

[exchemist]

Well for starters, raising this to the level of law is jumping over a lot of intermediate steps.

By loose analogy, there are a thousand ways citizens can take action to reduce pollution, waste and environmental damage that do not involve the courts passing laws against emmisions from factories.


No need to take it all the way to the level of mob rule. That is the fallacy of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


They are currently being beaten, sexually assaulted, raped and murdered.

The only thing that not outing the men does is protect the men.


Which is somehow worse than rape and murder?

The social structure preserves men's names from being dragged through the mud, while institutionalizing womens physical bodies being dragged through the mud.

No. This is becoming a hysterical mischaracterisation. Improve the law. Do not undermine it.

 

[DaveC426913]

No. This is becoming a hysterical mischaracterisation. Improve the law. Do not undermine it.

I know. I know. In principle, I agree with you.

But I am beginning to understand why women increasingly don't find that useful.


To be clear, there are also a thousand ways that the gender imbalance can be fought that don't involve vigilantiism or violence. That was my point about environmental action that doesn't require waiting to change laws. Concerned citizens organizing to make the world safer does not automatically mean roving mobs of men with pitchforks.



Posting names of abusers (without identifying details) may be one way to help, and it's not illegal. And it doesn't have to "ruin" anybody's life. Certainly not as much as a raped or murdered woman's life is ruined.

 

[TheVat]

Concerned citizens organizing to make the world safer does not automatically mean roving mobs of men with pitchforks.



Posting names of abusers (without identifying details) may be one way to help, and it's not illegal. And it doesn't have to "ruin" anybody's life. Certainly not as much as a raped or murdered woman's life is ruined

But posting a proven abuser is different from posting the recipient of an accusation. This is one of those matters which prompts the canard, "this is why we have courts." Forensic processes are there to make sure that the act of accusation is not weaponized. Posting names is "not illegal" when it reflects a true allegation, but when it proceeds from a false allegation then it can be illegal. As feminists have pointed out, women's rights must not come from being placed on a pedestal, even one of unimpeachable credibility, nice as that sounds. Do women lie about abuse as serious as drugged rape? Rarely, I imagine, and every account must be heard with respect, sympathy and willingness to dig for the evidence and follow where it leads. If there are grassroots ways to promote this, where do I sign up?

 

[billvon]

The wider point is the one TheVat makes about the consequences of abandoning the rule of law. Because that is what this approach does.

?? This "approach" is a 100% voluntary, uncontrolled, unvetted list of names. It's high tech gossip. Gossip has existed for thousands of years, and has not resulted in "abandoning the rule of law."

In the 1880s more than half the US were agricultural workers - farmers and people who supported farms (farmhands, blacksmiths etc.) Due to the nature of farming people were mostly geographically fixed to the farms they worked. Thus the society of the US was mostly distributed in small towns across the country. Gossip was rampant and had both good and bad effects. Good because the community knew that Ol' Silas was a little rapey, and thus you had to watch your daughters around him - and show up with a shotgun if he was seen riding off with one. Bad because sometimes people got that wrong, and of course bad because everyone just "knew" Susie was a bit of a loose woman because someone saw her smoking and/or wearing pants, and thus was not welcome in polite company.

As the US industrialized mobility increased. And as rail lines (and then roads) became more prevalent, and cars became affordable, people spread out more quickly, staying in a single community for less of their lives. Gossip still worked but was less of a deterrent. Charles could now leave a town where he assaulted a woman and make a "new start" down the road where no one knew him.

The rise of push media made it harder for famous people to get away with it, but for the ordinary person, it was still easy to escape the stigma associated with assaults. And of course back then it was much harder to prove assault; even a huband who admitted to forcing sex on his wife could not be prosecuted.

Then social media came along, and that ability to use gossip to create social stigmas has returned. Algorithms that cluster people have replaced geographic borders of towns, but we have a similar effect where a group of people can now be aware of the online reputations of others. (Googling someone has, for example, become a common tool of women to vet men before meeting them.) And more importantly, online resources like National Ugly Mugs and Clienteye have provided sex workers a way to avoid violent or psychotic clients. This list is an extension of those resources.

And just like small town gossip this can be good and bad. But I don't see something completely new that will wash away the rule of law. It's just a new variation on a very old theme.

 

[DaveC426913]

But posting a proven abuser is different from posting the recipient of an accusation.

A pattern is very apparent that gets repeated everywhere:

Men are always concerned on what might happen to the man. That would be a travesty. "Oh no. He might have to explain himself. What about his rights?"

It never seems to be "Holy shit. No two ways about it, she was beaten. She was raped. She was murdered." Where are her rights to not be raped? Why do we protect the men?

Too much? Let me demonstrate a different scenario:

This is one of those matters which prompts the canard, "this is why we have courts."

But we are not talking about courts. There, Blackstone's ratio holds:
"Better twenty guilty men go free rather than one innocent man be hanged."


Let me simplify the scenario and make it a little more immediate than the months or years that a court date night take

(Yes, it's contrived. Humour me for a moment):

You walk in on Bob and Jane in a warehouse aisle at work. Jane has marks on her face, a torn skirt and is crying as she pushes past you to escape.
Bob is smiling goofily and calling her a frigid bitch.

Is this the time to say "Best not accuse Bob of anything. Jane seems fine, she's probably going to go home. But let's get him out of here before the manager jumps to a hasty conclusion and fires him on the spot. That could ruin his life. It's Friday. Let's let everybody go home and collet themselves and we'll deal with this on Monday."

It's ridiculous, of course.

But let's zoom out and look at our attitudes in general.

Do you see how ridiculous it is to spend all the effort on protecting Bob's good name while Jane is literally suffering from sexual assault (by someone, can't point any fingers here...) He may need to slip out the back door. She may need to go to the hospital.

If you were to intervene, which one of them should be locked in the manager's office until the police arrive? Jane? Or Bob? which one should be interrogated? Jane or Bob?


"Change the law to protect the women" is the analogue of "We'll sort it out on Monday. Jane's not going anywhere, but Bob has a fishing trip to get to."

 

[TheVat]

You walk in on Bob and Jane in a warehouse aisle at work. Jane has marks on her face, a torn skirt and is crying as she pushes past you to escape.
Bob is smiling goofily and calling her a frigid bitch.

Is this the time to say "Best not accuse Bob of anything. Jane seems fine, she's probably going to go home. But let's get him out of here before the manager jumps to a hasty conclusion and fires him on the spot. That could ruin his life. It's Friday. Let's let everybody go home and collet themselves and we'll deal with this on Monday."

It's ridiculous, of course.

Well, I'd say this one spells out why ad hoc and amateur responses can be so askew. I'm suggesting he who walks in on such a situation just call 911 immediately, stay with the victim, and inform Bob that he must stay or will be fleeing law enforcement. A response from a functional criminal justice system will get Jane justice and a Bob-free workspace while things get sorted. Shouting "Bob's the rapist!" down the vast echoing stretches of social media could hinder forensic work and jury selection and actually harm Jane's chances for justice.

Sure, at less legally fraught levels of misconduct, SM can be helpful - like the millennia-old gossip networks billvon mentioned. But gossip networks are very double edged swords. Both helpful warnings and malice may spread. And now with massive Internet amplification. Criminal justice systems don't work uniess we demand higher standards from them.

I just don't trust the Internet. Too much wearing of masks, too much Dunning Krueger effect, too much people egging each other on.

 

[Roosters for ever]

All violence, (particularly against women, needs to be eliminated.
In Australia, the government is actively working towards that endeavour by enacting various laws and initiatives, starting with equality of the sexes at school, and our recent social media ban for children under 16.
Violence against women in Australia, while certainly still at an unacceptable level, has decreased in recent times. The social media ban for under 16,s has helped curb on-line bullying, that the cowards amongst us have used with impunity. Prevalence of violence against women is declining and attitudes towards the issue are improving. At least in Australia. Let's hope that trend continues.
Anti bullying programs are in use in our schools where bullying and consequently "inequality" are fostered.
At the risk of sounding extremely anti Trump, if violence against women is increasing in the USA, then start with ending the terror reign of your pussy grabbing President.

https://www.dss.gov.au/national-plan-end-violence-against-women-and-children

Preventing violence against women

Our Watch is Australia’s leader in the primary prevention of violence against women.

www.ourwatch.org.au

https://www.pmc.gov.au/office-women/womens-safety

 

[Roosters for ever]

Issues with inequality between the sexes, along with violence against women in Australia, is also improving. This is evident in the meaningful closing of the "pay gap" between men and women employees, doing the same job, and the increase seen with the number of female CEO's.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, I'd say this one spells out why ad hoc and amateur responses can be so askew. I'm suggesting he who walks in on such a situation just call 911 immediately, stay with the victim, and inform Bob that he must stay

So, you act in her best interests and not his, damn his inconvenience. Let the law sort out the details after.
Jane gets the care she needs immediately, while Bob's freedom's are curtailed.

Perfect.

or will be fleeing law enforcement. A response from a functional criminal justice system will get Jane justice and a Bob-free workspace while things get sorted.

Yes. You acknowledge that the law will come to bear ... eventually. But you acted immediately to contain Bob and neutralize the danger he poses, and you acted to prioritize Jane's needs. Because those were your first priorities.

Perfect.

Shouting "Bob's the rapist!" down the vast echoing stretches of social media could hinder forensic work and jury selection and actually harm Jane's chances for justice.

But you did treat him as the perpetrator, with all the ability at your disposal, until such time as the law can come to bear.

Perfect.

But gossip networks are very double edged swords.

That's OK, we'll just rebrand that gossip network as "locker room talk". Locker room talk is perfectly acceptable.


(Humour my sarcasm; don't take it personally...)

Both helpful warnings and malice may spread.

Oh no. Some hypothetical harm may (your word) come to some hypothetical person, through some hypothetical means, at some hypothetical time in the future.

And yet there are women being assaulted, raped and murdered RIGHT NOW. How does your "malice may spread" stand up to that?

Alice to Cathy: "Well, Jane is dead, yes, but no malice was spread, so that's a win."

Don't you see the double-standard? Of what use is society's niceties to murdered Jane? How is "malice may hypothetically spread" a more meaningful metric of the state of our society than "another woman was raped/murdered today"?


Finally, what's the worst "malice" that can spread? Men being assaulted, raped, murdered by women? Why, that's unspeakable, isn't it?

 

[TheVat]

Yes. You acknowledge that the law will come to bear ... eventually. But you acted immediately to contain Bob and neutralize the danger he poses, and you acted to prioritize Jane's needs. Because those were your first priorities.

Perfect.

Well, the scenario you described made some common sense choices easier. The person with scratches and torn attire and weeping is Jane, so I can err on her side without making final judgements. If Bob turns out to have been rescuing her from a rogue infindibulator that was sucking her dress into its maw, apologies later, and Bob will hopefully understand why it looked bad and calling her a "frigid b--ch" made him appear culpable. In the moment, prudent humans go with common sense and most probable explanations. Then we pass it off to good forensics and we need to demand our governments supply such.

I'm saying we can help prevent harm to Jane AND promote also the wheels of justice.

And yet there are women being assaulted, raped and murdered RIGHT NOW. How does your "malice may spread" stand up to that?

I think my phrase may have not gotten across that I don't see the destructive power of the Internet as hypothetical. If Jane has a safe place to go until the facts are sorted, then it's hard to justify putting more than "Bob is currently a person of interest in the police investigation ongoing" on the Web. On the chance that Bob DID rescue Jane from the vicious jaws of an infindibulator and was yelling frigid b--ch at the machine, maybe not do the roasting Bob alive on SM thing quite yet? Yeah, he's probably guilty, but it's nice not to hand people over to reputational lynch mobs until some facts are sifted. (Similarly, I wouldn't want Jane to be dragged into a SM circus and demeaned for her real fears if they later proved misdirected.)

If your argument is something like "Jane or someone else will die because Bob wasn't already on the Canadian Hideous Men registry prior to any convictions," I'm not sure what to think of that. It's hypothetical, too. Could all hideous men be reliably up on the registry in a timely manner? What are the criteria? What if my innocent hand is accidentally shoved into a woman's butt crack on a crowded subway car and despite profuse apologies I'm pepper-sprayed, a video posted, and I'm on the registry and unemployed in short order? Is that a reasonable cost for safety? I just spend the remainder of my impoverished existence avoiding packed subway situations and with hands meekly stuffed in pockets at all times.

(As you said, some sarcasm to be humored, and nothing personal - always enjoy your thoughts on these issues)

 

[DaveC426913]

(As you said, some sarcasm to be humored, and nothing personal - always enjoy your thoughts on these issues)

Thanks. That means more than you know. Been a rough week. With the loss of foghorn, I'm kind of questioning who my friends are.

 

[James R]

prevalence of violence against women is declining and attitudes towards the issue are improving. At least in Australia.

May I ask what statistics you're relying on for this?

 

[Roosters for ever]

May I ask what statistics you're relying on for this?

I gave 3 links in post 32 https://www.ourwatch.org.au/quick-facts

Snapshot of key data from our Report card:​

Violence against women has decreased over the past 10 years. Footnote34
There has been a significant decrease in the number of women murdered each year over the past 3 decades. Footnote35
Most Australians know gender inequality and violence against women are significant issues.

Australians’ understanding of, and attitudes towards, violence against women and gender inequality are improving. Footnote37
Young men report lower social pressure to conform to rigid ideals of masculinity, however one-quarter continue to strongly endorse rigid ideals of masculinity. Footnote38

Find further detail including more specific data and analysis in our Report card: Tracking progress in the primary prevention of violence against women below.

But again, in any case, "All violence, (particularly against women, needs to be eliminated."
In Australia, the government is actively working towards that endeavour by enacting various laws and initiatives, starting with equality of the sexes at school, and our recent social media ban for children under 16.
Violence against women in Australia, while certainly still at an unacceptable level, has decreased in recent times. The social media ban for under 16,s has helped curb on-line bullying, that the cowards amongst us have used with impunity. Prevalence of violence against women is declining and attitudes towards the issue are improving. At least in Australia. Let's hope that trend continues.
Anti bullying programs are in use in our schools where bullying and consequently "inequality" are fostered.
At the risk of sounding extremely anti Trump, if violence against women is increasing in the USA, then start with ending the terror reign of your pussy grabbing President.

I believe our present government under Albo is doing its best to nip this at a young age. That's not to say, more cannot be done.