|
On May 02 2013 22:56 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:52 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:21 Goozen wrote:
The only solution is remove anonymity, nothing else will work. The bottom line is that there are 2 kinds of people who obey the law. Those that who do it because its a law, and those who fear the punishment that they will receive from breaking it. As long as this vocal minority isn't forced to receive consequences for their action, they won't change.
And lets face it, it doesn't help that a fair number of women use their sexuality as a tool to gain benefits. Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this. These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case... Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws... If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html I will look for more serious sources, because the daily mail is a rather horrific source... however women should never be blamed for being the victim of rape. Just like men should never be blamed for being the victim of stabbing, even if they have worked up a ten thousand dollar debt to a drug dealer and is telling him to suck it when he shows up armed at his door. It would be naïve to assign any sort of responsibility to the victim.
Stabbing seems to be categorically the wrong solution there. Rape seems to be the categorical wrong solution to any possible situation I can think of. You arguing otherwise is rather scary.
And I am using the normal definition of rape here, that someone is forced to perform sexual acts against their will. Name one situation where that is even remotely acceptable.
|
I agree with people that this is sort of a "what did you expect would happen?" situation. The internet is full of jackasses that will demean women and treat them like objects just because they are women. That is to be expected from the internet unfortunately.
BUT ... Things were that way in America with African Americans before the civil war (and after realistically). I'm sure at the time the general consensus was, you were born with black skin in America so you'll be mistreated and robbed of your freedom and dignity as a result. Many people in this situation would have said that this problem was irreparable and things would just stay that way so people should get used to it. Obviously though that could be fixed as Barrack Obama is now the president. Please note that I am not saying that racism is gone in the US but rather that the issue got solved enough that people could accept and want an African American as a president.
SO ... Why aren't we taking steps towards remedying this situation. Sure I have been told to kill myself and been told that people would murder my family etc. etc. but I wouldn't mind if that shit ended as well. I don't like being told that I should commit suicide and she doesn't like being objectified. Neither me nor her are wrong in feeling like this is shit that we shouldn't have to put up with treatment because some idiot can't control his/her rage or sexuality. It may be an insurmountable problem but if we all just say that and accept that decency on the internet is a lost cause then it will always be a lost cause. It's not too much to ask that you at least try to improve the situation.
|
On May 02 2013 22:59 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:
Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it.
Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this)
With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. How about this scenario: girl gets tipsy, goes home with guy, she draws the line at kissing and cuddling, guy strongly insists on sex and she figures it's easier to just go along rather than risk his reaction to being rejected.
Not enough details.
|
BallinwitStallin types lots of stuff.
He is wrong on point 6 and mostly right on point 7.
I admire you for having the patience and persistence to type that out. I generally have a difficult time taking it seriously when people try to misconstrue history to make it seem like women actually had it pretty fantastic, and that feminism is a hoax to get a free ride. Disingenuous doesn't quite cover it.
|
On May 02 2013 22:59 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:
Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it.
Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this)
With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. How about this scenario: girl gets tipsy, goes home with guy, she draws the line at kissing and cuddling, guy strongly insists on sex and she figures it's easier to just go along rather than risk his reaction to being rejected.
Still consent. Without a reasonable expectation of violence being insinuated, it cannot be treated as forced consent.
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:56 Darkwhite wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:On May 02 2013 19:21 Goozen wrote:
The only solution is remove anonymity, nothing else will work. The bottom line is that there are 2 kinds of people who obey the law. Those that who do it because its a law, and those who fear the punishment that they will receive from breaking it. As long as this vocal minority isn't forced to receive consequences for their action, they won't change.
And lets face it, it doesn't help that a fair number of women use their sexuality as a tool to gain benefits. Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this. These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case... Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws... If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html I will look for more serious sources, because the daily mail is a rather horrific source... however women should never be blamed for being the victim of rape. Just like men should never be blamed for being the victim of stabbing, even if they have worked up a ten thousand dollar debt to a drug dealer and is telling him to suck it when he shows up armed at his door. It would be naïve to assign any sort of responsibility to the victim. Stabbing seems to be categorically the wrong solution there. Rape seems to be the categorical wrong solution to any possible situation I can think of. You arguing otherwise is rather scary. And I am using the normal definition of rape here, that someone is forced to perform sexual acts against their will. Name one situation where that is even remotely acceptable.
Not only is he arguing that rape is the fault of the victim in some cases he's also using drug dealing loan sharks as the moral benchmark for judging all men. If drug dealing loan sharks think it's okay to stab people then logically that makes rape okay... somehow.
Alternatively it's wrong to stab people, and to rape people.
|
On May 02 2013 22:59 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:
Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it.
Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this)
With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. How about this scenario: girl gets tipsy, goes home with guy, she draws the line at kissing and cuddling, guy strongly insists on sex and she figures it's easier to just go along rather than risk his reaction to being rejected.
"risk his reaction", what? So now women are choosing being raped and reporting it later (how's that going to be for a reaction) over having an awkward situation with the guy the next day. And if you think that 30% (think of you and two friends, one of you is pulling the trigger) of guys would straight up physically assault a girl who directly said "no" cos they were a bit horny, you have a LOT less faith in humanity than I do.
|
On May 02 2013 22:54 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:41 gedatsu wrote:On May 02 2013 22:23 McBengt wrote:On May 02 2013 22:06 gedatsu wrote:
Good job ignoring the issues I brought up. If you try hard enough, maybe you can will them out of existence.
I see that you are from Sweden. Here are some fun facts about feminism and equality in Sweden:
1) women had the right to vote before men did, 1921 vs 1923.
2) when the male-only military draft was ended in 2010, only the feminist parties were in opposition.
3) women earn about 85% of what men do (not because of discrimination, but because of working less and in different jobs). However, due to high taxes and welfare payouts, women more than make up for the difference in a lifetime.
4) it is illegal to mutilate a baby girl's genitals, but perfectly ok to mutilate a baby boy's.
5) a woman gets two different ways out of an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of what the father feels. A man gets none, unless the woman agrees with him.
6) girls receive better grades simply for being girls. When the examiner does not know the gender of the examinee, girls do not get this bonus.
7) women receive lighter sentences by the judicial system, when committing the same crime.
Actual points, good. 1. Incorrect. Both sexes were grant suffrage under the law in 1919. 2. Feminist parties? the vote was 153 in favour, 150 opposed. I doubt the one feminist party we have, which is not even in the parliament, could muster those votes. 3. Women make less than men on average, for the same work, it's been shown in multiple independent studies. The difference is less drastic that in many other countries, which is good. 4. I am vehemently opposed to circumcision in all forms, and would like to see it made illegal. 5. The right to choose is a basic part of the empowerment of women. I agree that some protection for men who do not wish to be fathers would be good. 6. Untrue, girls in general just perform better in swedish schools. I speak from both personal experience and from studying several surveys on the topic. 7. This is true, and an affront. I would like to see full equality practiced by the judicial system as well. Now why don't you tell me some of the benefits I enjoy simply for being a man. Better pay, more likely to get hired, a higher tolerance for eccentricity and generally deviant behaviour from society, to name a few. 1. No. Until 1923, men still had to perform military duty to earn their ability to vote. Women were allowed to vote simply for having a vagina. 2. The Left Party, Social Democrats and Green Party voted against. They happen to be the parliamentary parties that officially label themselves as feminist. 3. They make less, for different work. See http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Löneskillnader_mellan_män_och_kvinnor_i_Sverige#Sverige where several studies report very small differences, and see also the rightmost column demonstrating that there are still relevant factors that were not taken into account. 6. Again, when the examiner does not know the gender of the person they are grading, girls do not get better grades than boys. But when the examiner does know that, girls do get better grades. This is a very demonstrable case of discrimination. I covered the pay issue above. More likely to be hired is a big joke, see affirmative action and the fact that more men than women are unwillingly unemployed (and the difference is increasing). I don't even know what higher tolerance for eccentricity is supposed to mean. 1. Military service was mandatory. If you did not participate you were a criminal and would lose your right to vote anyway. 2. They are leftist parties, not femenist parties. They support feminism as a principle. Important distinction. 3. A half-truth. http://www.scb.se/statistik/AM/AM9902/2004A01/AM9902_2004A01_BR_AM78ST0402.pdfhttp://www.utredarna.nu/ulrikahagstrom/2012/08/24/vad-sager-den-officiella-statistiken-om-loneskillnaden-mellan-kvinnor-och-man-2011/part of it is explained by a difference in career paths, but not all of it. Within the same fields, with identical credentials, women still make less. Women also, on average, have a higher degree of formal education. 6. They actually do, girls have been consistently outperforming boys in just about every area. Higher education has a massive overrepresentation of women; http://www.hsv.se/download/18.6923699711a25cb275a8000278/
1. Exactly. Men had to agree to sacrifice their life to be able to vote. Women had to have a vagina to be able to vote. This sexist difference still officially exists in the US, btw.
2. They all label themselves as feminist. http://www.mp.se/politik/jamstalldhet-och-jamlikhet http://www.vansterpartiet.se/material/partiprogram/ http://www.socialdemokraterna.se/Webben-for-alla/S-kvinnor/S-kvinnor/om-s-kvinnor/Vilka-ar-vi/
The other parties, the ones who voted in favor of ending male slavery, do not.
3. I didn't say all of it is explained by career paths. There are other factors, such as overtime, sick leave and willingness to commute. All these factors together, they explain the pay gap completely.
6. I was talking about grades in school, not participation in school. But funny you should bring that up; at a time where women were already making up 60% of the college population, the högskoleprov (SAT equivalent) was changed because it was seen as unfairly benefiting men. I guess they thought that 60% wasn't enough.
Do note, however, that the majors in college where women outperform men, are usually the majors that have little to no effect on one's future career. Women are largely, and to a degree far higher than men, educating themselves for nothing.
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:05 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:59 Grumbels wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:
Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it.
Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this)
With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. How about this scenario: girl gets tipsy, goes home with guy, she draws the line at kissing and cuddling, guy strongly insists on sex and she figures it's easier to just go along rather than risk his reaction to being rejected. "risk his reaction", what? So now women are choosing being raped and reporting it later (how's that going to be for a reaction) over having an awkward situation with the guy the next day. And if you think that 30% (think of you and two friends, one of you is pulling the trigger) of guys would straight up physically assault a girl who directly said "no" cos they were a bit horny, you have a LOT less faith in humanity than I do.
Er, statistically either you or someone you know reasonably well socially is a rapist. Sad but true.
+ Show Spoiler +Thomas looks at a study of 1882 college students who were asked four questions to determine if they had ever raped (or attempted to rape) anyone:
1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?
2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?
3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
Questions like these are bound to lead to underreporting—what guy is going to admit to forcing a girl to give him head? As it turns out, a lot of guys will admit to this, 120 to be exact: That's six percent of the survey's respondents who copped to either rape or attempted rape. Importantly, Thomas notes, the survey does not actually ask these guys if they've ever exactly "raped" anyone:
If a survey asks men, for example, if they ever “had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances,” some of them will say yes, as long as the questions don’t use the “R” word.
And they didn't just admit to raping—they admitted to raping repeatedly (as long as it's not really "rape," of course!) According to the study, a small percentage of men are responsible for committing a large portion of sexual assaults—that's a whole lot of "accidents," "misreadings," and "gray areas":
Of the 120 rapists in the sample, 44 reported only one assault. The remaining 76 were repeat offenders. These 76 men, 63% of the rapists, committed 439 rapes or attempted rapes, an average of 5.8 each (median of 3, so there were some super-repeat offenders in this group). Just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes.
What does this mean about our "accidental" rapists?
a) The vast majority of acquaintance rapes are committed by the same people;
b) These people don't see themselves as "rapists";
c) They are, however, able recognize that they regularly threat, force, and intoxicate women in order to have sex with them.
Oops! There's no "accident" here—these guys just deny, evade punishment, and repeat.
So, what do we do to stop these guys? Well, here's a start: Let's call them rapists. It's not just rapists who fail to recognize these behaviors—threatening, forcing, incapacitating—as "real" rape. We all have to stop making excuses for calling a rapist a rapist—and doubting, minimizing, or lashing out against the people who do use that word. Women need to know that they can call their experiences "rape" and report them as crimes. They need to know that they can call their rapists "rapists," even if the rapist is also someone's "friend," "acquaintance," "co-worker," "fraternity brother," or "respected member of our community." As Thomas says:
The men in your lives will tell you what they do. As long as the R word doesn’t get attached, rapists do self-report. The guy who says he sees a woman too drunk to know where she is as an opportunity is not joking. He’s telling you how he sees it. The guy who says, “bros before hos”, is asking you to make a pact.
The Pact. The social structure that allows the predators to hide in plain sight, to sit at the bar at the same table with everyone, take a target home, rape her, and stay in the same social circle because she can’t or won’t tell anyone, or because nobody does anything if she does. The pact to make excuses, to look for mitigation, to patch things over—to believe that what happens to our friends—what our friends do to our friends—is not (using Whoopi Goldberg’s pathetic apologetics) “rape-rape.”
. . . The rapists can’t be your friends, and if you are loyal to them even when faced with the evidence of what they do, you are complicit.
That last point is an important one. People who excuse rapists usually see that equation from the other end: "He's my friend, so he can't be a rapist." We need to reverse that equation—"He's a rapist, so he can't be my friend." Perhaps them we could begin addressing why the dictionary definition of rape is overlooked—threatening, forcing, and incapacitating for sex—in our to avoid applying the word—"rapist"—to anyone we know.
|
On May 02 2013 23:05 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:59 Grumbels wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:
Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it.
Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this)
With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. How about this scenario: girl gets tipsy, goes home with guy, she draws the line at kissing and cuddling, guy strongly insists on sex and she figures it's easier to just go along rather than risk his reaction to being rejected. "risk his reaction", what? So now women are choosing being raped and reporting it later (how's that going to be for a reaction) over having an awkward situation with the guy the next day. And if you think that 30% (think of you and two friends, one of you is pulling the trigger) of guys would straight up physically assault a girl who directly said "no" cos they were a bit horny, you have a LOT less faith in humanity than I do.
Just last weekend at a local club I saw a guy break a girl's nose because he was upset at her for trying to take her way-too-drunk friend home. Quite heroically, that girl stood her ground and last I saw of that guy was him getting put into a police cruiser. If you think some girls are afraid to say "no" just to avoid an awkward situation you need to wake the fuck up.
-edit; and before anybody misconstrues this into meaning all women who say "yes" are just saying so because they're afraid etc. obviously this is not the case. Not all men are rapists, but some men (and some women) are. And very often what happens is a woman will say "no" only to be greeted by aggressive, angry, and possibly violent behavior on the part of the man. Some women will "consent" only because they're afraid (and quite rightfully so) they'll be harmed if they don't. We aren't living in biblical times where a rape victim is guilty of adultery because clearly she didn't try to fight off her attacker hard enough or scream loud enough.
|
On May 02 2013 22:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:44 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:42 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:
[quote]
Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this.
These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case...
Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws...
If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html Yeah, well about 25% of rape accusations are false. Funny how that works out. Note "They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html#ixzz2S8u0MWPX" That doesn't address the point at all. KwarK is talking about cases where everyone agrees there has been rape, but still the victim is blamed. There might be a high number of false accusations, but that is a different topic. Have you actually checked out the stats in the link? If the woman was drunk, 4pc said she was totally responsible and 26pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman behaved in a flirtatious manner, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 28pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman failed to say "no" clearly to the man, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 29pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 20pc said she was partially responsible. If it is known that the woman has many sexual partners, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 14pc said she was partially responsible. If she is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area, 5pc said she was totally responsible and 17pc said she was partially responsible. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html#ixzz2S8v4cB3t Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it. Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this) With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. What you have done here is create a hypothetical in which rape didn't happen and used it to disprove rape as a concept. Unfortunately logic took a pretty severe hit in the process. You're right, if no rape took place then no rape took place. However if the women says "no" when asked if she would like to have sex then the fact that she was wearing sexy clothing does not make her refusal to consent ambiguous. If the woman says "no" when asked if she wants to have sex, is forced to have sex but has many sexual partners then 14% of people think she was partially to blame. It's that simple.
Well rape is reported by the woman, after the fact, right? So if it's actually NOT a rape, but the woman later regrets it and reports it and the guy gets convicted, it gets reported as "well the woman was raped, it definitely wasn't a regret case". The guy can't say "we didn't have sex", cos they did, consensually. However, the statistics show about 30% of people believe that there is probably quite a bit of "regret" going on in there, which is partially or totally the woman's responsibility in cases where indicators of likely consensual promiscuity such as drinking, dressing up, flirting exist.
|
On May 02 2013 23:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:05 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:59 Grumbels wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:
Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it.
Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this)
With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. How about this scenario: girl gets tipsy, goes home with guy, she draws the line at kissing and cuddling, guy strongly insists on sex and she figures it's easier to just go along rather than risk his reaction to being rejected. "risk his reaction", what? So now women are choosing being raped and reporting it later (how's that going to be for a reaction) over having an awkward situation with the guy the next day. And if you think that 30% (think of you and two friends, one of you is pulling the trigger) of guys would straight up physically assault a girl who directly said "no" cos they were a bit horny, you have a LOT less faith in humanity than I do. Er, statistically either you or someone you know reasonably well socially is a rapist. Sad but true. + Show Spoiler +Thomas looks at a study of 1882 college students who were asked four questions to determine if they had ever raped (or attempted to rape) anyone:
1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?
2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?
3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
Questions like these are bound to lead to underreporting—what guy is going to admit to forcing a girl to give him head? As it turns out, a lot of guys will admit to this, 120 to be exact: That's six percent of the survey's respondents who copped to either rape or attempted rape. Importantly, Thomas notes, the survey does not actually ask these guys if they've ever exactly "raped" anyone:
If a survey asks men, for example, if they ever “had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances,” some of them will say yes, as long as the questions don’t use the “R” word.
And they didn't just admit to raping—they admitted to raping repeatedly (as long as it's not really "rape," of course!) According to the study, a small percentage of men are responsible for committing a large portion of sexual assaults—that's a whole lot of "accidents," "misreadings," and "gray areas":
Of the 120 rapists in the sample, 44 reported only one assault. The remaining 76 were repeat offenders. These 76 men, 63% of the rapists, committed 439 rapes or attempted rapes, an average of 5.8 each (median of 3, so there were some super-repeat offenders in this group). Just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes.
What does this mean about our "accidental" rapists?
a) The vast majority of acquaintance rapes are committed by the same people;
b) These people don't see themselves as "rapists";
c) They are, however, able recognize that they regularly threat, force, and intoxicate women in order to have sex with them.
Oops! There's no "accident" here—these guys just deny, evade punishment, and repeat.
So, what do we do to stop these guys? Well, here's a start: Let's call them rapists. It's not just rapists who fail to recognize these behaviors—threatening, forcing, incapacitating—as "real" rape. We all have to stop making excuses for calling a rapist a rapist—and doubting, minimizing, or lashing out against the people who do use that word. Women need to know that they can call their experiences "rape" and report them as crimes. They need to know that they can call their rapists "rapists," even if the rapist is also someone's "friend," "acquaintance," "co-worker," "fraternity brother," or "respected member of our community." As Thomas says:
The men in your lives will tell you what they do. As long as the R word doesn’t get attached, rapists do self-report. The guy who says he sees a woman too drunk to know where she is as an opportunity is not joking. He’s telling you how he sees it. The guy who says, “bros before hos”, is asking you to make a pact.
The Pact. The social structure that allows the predators to hide in plain sight, to sit at the bar at the same table with everyone, take a target home, rape her, and stay in the same social circle because she can’t or won’t tell anyone, or because nobody does anything if she does. The pact to make excuses, to look for mitigation, to patch things over—to believe that what happens to our friends—what our friends do to our friends—is not (using Whoopi Goldberg’s pathetic apologetics) “rape-rape.”
. . . The rapists can’t be your friends, and if you are loyal to them even when faced with the evidence of what they do, you are complicit.
That last point is an important one. People who excuse rapists usually see that equation from the other end: "He's my friend, so he can't be a rapist." We need to reverse that equation—"He's a rapist, so he can't be my friend." Perhaps them we could begin addressing why the dictionary definition of rape is overlooked—threatening, forcing, and incapacitating for sex—in our to avoid applying the word—"rapist"—to anyone we know.
do you only have two male people you know reasonably well then? Because if you have any more, then it would indicate that less than 30% of guys (as an anecdotal sample of your acquaintances) would rape a girl if she said "no". If you know 100 males reasonably well (probably a fair assumption) then it's about 1%.
|
I don't know Alanah Pearce and I'm curious how did she become famous. Correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect that's mainly because she is a woman. Intentionally or not she used her gender to gain popularity and now she should realize being a female celebrity in male dominated community has some flaws. I don't know her and I'm not trying to say that she's a bad at what she's doing but her expectations are just ridiculous.
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:11 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:59 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:44 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:42 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:
[quote]
I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also.
Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html Yeah, well about 25% of rape accusations are false. Funny how that works out. Note "They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html#ixzz2S8u0MWPX" That doesn't address the point at all. KwarK is talking about cases where everyone agrees there has been rape, but still the victim is blamed. There might be a high number of false accusations, but that is a different topic. Have you actually checked out the stats in the link? If the woman was drunk, 4pc said she was totally responsible and 26pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman behaved in a flirtatious manner, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 28pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman failed to say "no" clearly to the man, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 29pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 20pc said she was partially responsible. If it is known that the woman has many sexual partners, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 14pc said she was partially responsible. If she is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area, 5pc said she was totally responsible and 17pc said she was partially responsible. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html#ixzz2S8v4cB3t Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it. Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this) With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. What you have done here is create a hypothetical in which rape didn't happen and used it to disprove rape as a concept. Unfortunately logic took a pretty severe hit in the process. You're right, if no rape took place then no rape took place. However if the women says "no" when asked if she would like to have sex then the fact that she was wearing sexy clothing does not make her refusal to consent ambiguous. If the woman says "no" when asked if she wants to have sex, is forced to have sex but has many sexual partners then 14% of people think she was partially to blame. It's that simple. Well rape is reported by the woman, after the fact, right? So if it's actually NOT a rape, but the woman later regrets it and reports it and the guy gets convicted, it gets reported as "well the woman was raped, it definitely wasn't a regret case". The guy can't say "we didn't have sex", cos they did, consensually. However, the statistics show about 30% of people believe that there is probably quite a bit of "regret" going on in there, which is partially or totally the woman's responsibility in cases where indicators of likely consensual promiscuity such as drinking, dressing up, flirting exist.
That isn't in any way what the survey showed. The survey did not say "if you have seen a woman drunk who is known for having multiple sexual partners with a guy one night and she claims to have been raped the next morning do you believe her" to which 30% of people expressed doubt that she was raped.
The starting assumption of the question is that she was definitely raped. A rape 100% occurred, it simply asked which of the following factors you felt placed blame on the victim.
You are somehow failing to read a fairly simple survey. 30% of people think there are circumstances under which a woman who absolutely definitely did not consent to sex is to blame for her rape.
|
On May 02 2013 23:11 YumYumGranola wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:05 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:59 Grumbels wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:
Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it.
Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this)
With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. How about this scenario: girl gets tipsy, goes home with guy, she draws the line at kissing and cuddling, guy strongly insists on sex and she figures it's easier to just go along rather than risk his reaction to being rejected. "risk his reaction", what? So now women are choosing being raped and reporting it later (how's that going to be for a reaction) over having an awkward situation with the guy the next day. And if you think that 30% (think of you and two friends, one of you is pulling the trigger) of guys would straight up physically assault a girl who directly said "no" cos they were a bit horny, you have a LOT less faith in humanity than I do. Just last weekend at a local club I saw a guy break a girl's nose because he was upset at her for trying to take her way-too-drunk friend home. Quite heroically, that girl stood her ground and last I saw of that guy was him getting put into a police cruiser. If you think some girls are afraid to say "no" just to avoid an awkward situation you need to wake the fuck up. -edit; and before anybody misconstrues this into meaning all women who say "yes" are just saying so because they're afraid etc. obviously this is not the case. Not all men are rapists, but some men (and some women) are. And very often what happens is a woman will say "no" only to be greeted by aggressive, angry, and possibly violent behavior on the part of the man. Some women will "consent" only because they're afraid (and quite rightfully so) they'll be harmed if they don't. We aren't living in biblical times where a rape victim is guilty of adultery because clearly she didn't try to fight off her attacker hard enough or scream loud enough.
Important: "If you think some girls are afraid to say "no" just to avoid an awkward situation you need to wake the fuck up."
This was exactly my point, which leaves the previous posters women get raped because they're afraid to say no when the guy tries to get physical with them cos 30% will follow through anyway" in the dust.
Ed: misplaced the statistic in my sentence.
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:13 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:10 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:05 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:59 Grumbels wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:
Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it.
Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this)
With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. How about this scenario: girl gets tipsy, goes home with guy, she draws the line at kissing and cuddling, guy strongly insists on sex and she figures it's easier to just go along rather than risk his reaction to being rejected. "risk his reaction", what? So now women are choosing being raped and reporting it later (how's that going to be for a reaction) over having an awkward situation with the guy the next day. And if you think that 30% (think of you and two friends, one of you is pulling the trigger) of guys would straight up physically assault a girl who directly said "no" cos they were a bit horny, you have a LOT less faith in humanity than I do. Er, statistically either you or someone you know reasonably well socially is a rapist. Sad but true. + Show Spoiler +Thomas looks at a study of 1882 college students who were asked four questions to determine if they had ever raped (or attempted to rape) anyone:
1) Have you ever attempted unsuccessfully to have intercourse with an adult by force or threat of force?
2) Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone who did not want you to because they were too intoxicated to resist?
3) Have you ever had intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
4) Have you ever had oral intercourse with someone by force or threat of force?
Questions like these are bound to lead to underreporting—what guy is going to admit to forcing a girl to give him head? As it turns out, a lot of guys will admit to this, 120 to be exact: That's six percent of the survey's respondents who copped to either rape or attempted rape. Importantly, Thomas notes, the survey does not actually ask these guys if they've ever exactly "raped" anyone:
If a survey asks men, for example, if they ever “had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances,” some of them will say yes, as long as the questions don’t use the “R” word.
And they didn't just admit to raping—they admitted to raping repeatedly (as long as it's not really "rape," of course!) According to the study, a small percentage of men are responsible for committing a large portion of sexual assaults—that's a whole lot of "accidents," "misreadings," and "gray areas":
Of the 120 rapists in the sample, 44 reported only one assault. The remaining 76 were repeat offenders. These 76 men, 63% of the rapists, committed 439 rapes or attempted rapes, an average of 5.8 each (median of 3, so there were some super-repeat offenders in this group). Just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes.
What does this mean about our "accidental" rapists?
a) The vast majority of acquaintance rapes are committed by the same people;
b) These people don't see themselves as "rapists";
c) They are, however, able recognize that they regularly threat, force, and intoxicate women in order to have sex with them.
Oops! There's no "accident" here—these guys just deny, evade punishment, and repeat.
So, what do we do to stop these guys? Well, here's a start: Let's call them rapists. It's not just rapists who fail to recognize these behaviors—threatening, forcing, incapacitating—as "real" rape. We all have to stop making excuses for calling a rapist a rapist—and doubting, minimizing, or lashing out against the people who do use that word. Women need to know that they can call their experiences "rape" and report them as crimes. They need to know that they can call their rapists "rapists," even if the rapist is also someone's "friend," "acquaintance," "co-worker," "fraternity brother," or "respected member of our community." As Thomas says:
The men in your lives will tell you what they do. As long as the R word doesn’t get attached, rapists do self-report. The guy who says he sees a woman too drunk to know where she is as an opportunity is not joking. He’s telling you how he sees it. The guy who says, “bros before hos”, is asking you to make a pact.
The Pact. The social structure that allows the predators to hide in plain sight, to sit at the bar at the same table with everyone, take a target home, rape her, and stay in the same social circle because she can’t or won’t tell anyone, or because nobody does anything if she does. The pact to make excuses, to look for mitigation, to patch things over—to believe that what happens to our friends—what our friends do to our friends—is not (using Whoopi Goldberg’s pathetic apologetics) “rape-rape.”
. . . The rapists can’t be your friends, and if you are loyal to them even when faced with the evidence of what they do, you are complicit.
That last point is an important one. People who excuse rapists usually see that equation from the other end: "He's my friend, so he can't be a rapist." We need to reverse that equation—"He's a rapist, so he can't be my friend." Perhaps them we could begin addressing why the dictionary definition of rape is overlooked—threatening, forcing, and incapacitating for sex—in our to avoid applying the word—"rapist"—to anyone we know. do you only have two male people you know reasonably well then? Because if you have any more, then it would indicate that less than 30% of guys (as an anecdotal sample of your acquaintances) would rape a girl if she said "no". If you know 100 males reasonably well (probably a fair assumption) then it's about 1%.
I don't know why you're saying these words. What you're saying doesn't make sense and is completely unsubstantiated.
30% of adults in the UK will blame a victim, at least partially, for their rape.
6% of college aged men will confess to actually being rapists when asked without using the word rape.
|
On May 02 2013 23:04 KwarK wrote:
Alternatively it's wrong to stab people
Nooo 
serious question now: this one is directed to both camps, what would you do/what do you think of a situation when woman who is all for the feminism and equality is tasked to do a job which is, in her view, better suited for men (although she is perfectly capable of doing it) and refuses to do it on a basis that she is a woman and needs to be treated better?
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:18 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:11 YumYumGranola wrote:On May 02 2013 23:05 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:59 Grumbels wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:
Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it.
Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this)
With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. How about this scenario: girl gets tipsy, goes home with guy, she draws the line at kissing and cuddling, guy strongly insists on sex and she figures it's easier to just go along rather than risk his reaction to being rejected. "risk his reaction", what? So now women are choosing being raped and reporting it later (how's that going to be for a reaction) over having an awkward situation with the guy the next day. And if you think that 30% (think of you and two friends, one of you is pulling the trigger) of guys would straight up physically assault a girl who directly said "no" cos they were a bit horny, you have a LOT less faith in humanity than I do. Just last weekend at a local club I saw a guy break a girl's nose because he was upset at her for trying to take her way-too-drunk friend home. Quite heroically, that girl stood her ground and last I saw of that guy was him getting put into a police cruiser. If you think some girls are afraid to say "no" just to avoid an awkward situation you need to wake the fuck up. -edit; and before anybody misconstrues this into meaning all women who say "yes" are just saying so because they're afraid etc. obviously this is not the case. Not all men are rapists, but some men (and some women) are. And very often what happens is a woman will say "no" only to be greeted by aggressive, angry, and possibly violent behavior on the part of the man. Some women will "consent" only because they're afraid (and quite rightfully so) they'll be harmed if they don't. We aren't living in biblical times where a rape victim is guilty of adultery because clearly she didn't try to fight off her attacker hard enough or scream loud enough. Important: "If you think some girls are afraid to say "no" just to avoid an awkward situation you need to wake the fuck up." This was exactly my point, which leaves the previous posters "30% of women get raped because they're afraid to say no when the guy tries to get physical with them" in the dust.
You need to slow down and reread some posts. The 30% thing was a survey response about victim blame.
|
I don't want to go into feminism in history and globally, just going to keep this post at telling my own impression of this article and the discussion around it.
First of all: I like the article and I think it fills a good purpose because it's very forthright and objective. It exposes internet sexism for what it is. The take-away from it should be to discourage any such behavior when it is found.
Secondly: I'm a bit surprised at how fast this thread goes into jibjab about feminism even on TL. All this journalist did was expose the fact that she's being both objectified and sexually harassed for her gender because an awful lot of men just don't have anything better to do when cruising the webs. The article is focusing on her case as an example of what professional women in games are forced to endure regularily. It doesn't even touch on the whole "women unite versus the world" thingie that internet folks usually label feminism. It simply exposes some seriously messed up attitude that is out there. So don't go into man-ism and treat the exposure of such sexism as an accusation towards you specificly just because you're a man. You are most likely not one of these jerks described in the aritcle.
Thirdly, as an obvious consequence: I would not be surprised if all the posters rushing to "malevolent feminism blabla" as a name for this simple callout for human decency are regular requesters of boobshots themselves. They're completely overlooking the point of the article at the very least.
edit: clarified what "jerks" refers to.
|
On May 02 2013 23:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:01 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 22:56 Darkwhite wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:On May 02 2013 19:29 Velr wrote:
[quote]
Then there are teenagers (the main adience of stuff like this?) which often don't give a shit if there is no imminent/direct punishment... Which there never can and will be for stuff like this.
These are not even "easy" cases... I mean, where do you draw the line between harsh criticism or some "vulgar language" and ILLEGAL sexism/harrasment? You would need to have a Judge reading over all this and decide case by case...
Oh... And your on the Internet, that means these "offenders" can come from any country in the world, witch basically all have diffrent laws...
If she (or anyone else) can't deal with it... Then don't do it. It's not like actors or other TV-Persons have it "better", they normally just don't read immediate chat feedback. Your going out there in front of a camera, you will gate rated, insulted and objectified... Deal with it. I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also. Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html I will look for more serious sources, because the daily mail is a rather horrific source... however women should never be blamed for being the victim of rape. Just like men should never be blamed for being the victim of stabbing, even if they have worked up a ten thousand dollar debt to a drug dealer and is telling him to suck it when he shows up armed at his door. It would be naïve to assign any sort of responsibility to the victim. Stabbing seems to be categorically the wrong solution there. Rape seems to be the categorical wrong solution to any possible situation I can think of. You arguing otherwise is rather scary. And I am using the normal definition of rape here, that someone is forced to perform sexual acts against their will. Name one situation where that is even remotely acceptable. Not only is he arguing that rape is the fault of the victim in some cases he's also using drug dealing loan sharks as the moral benchmark for judging all men. If drug dealing loan sharks think it's okay to stab people then logically that makes rape okay... somehow. Alternatively it's wrong to stab people, and to rape people.
One would think that would go without saying. Yet somehow, on the Internet, it needs to be said.
On May 02 2013 23:11 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:59 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:52 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:44 zatic wrote:On May 02 2013 22:42 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 22:39 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 22:32 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2013 19:44 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 19:37 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 02 2013 19:35 Goozen wrote:
[quote]
I know, thats the problem. There is no way to stop or prevent this, the most that can happen is that moderates remove comments and ban people from youtube. But lets face it, i doubt that will happen also.
Saying "if you can't deal with it, don't do it" is the wrong attitude. Using this logic the police can say "don't wear revealing/ provocative clothing if you don't want to get harassed". There is a problem, there simply isnt much we can do, but blaming her is not the correct action. I agree, blaming her is not the correct action. I personally am not blaming her for this happening, although I will blame her for being a hypocrite (see my other posts) and also for dealing with this in the completely wrong way. Ignore the trolls, get someone to ban/censor them for you, or smite them. Going public with this (as if it's a big deal, as if there aren't thousand of other YouTube and Twitch channels that deal with this shit just as much as her) and playing victim will NOT accomplish Anything AT ALL. EDIT: Or she can even realize that these trolls still contribute to her page views, video views, channel views etc and by commenting they push her videos higher up the YouTube ladder. So she's basically able to make more money thanks to this negative attention. Could probably try to exploit that instead of getting all pissy. You realise that women are trained from an early age not to cause a scene when men do things they're not comfortable. That it's just boys being boys and they should just put up with it, from leering to catcalling all the way up to harassment. That if a woman actually says "why don't you just fuck off" then suddenly she's hormonal, overreacting and a bitch. People blame women for rape when they don't fight enough or say "no" loudly enough and they call them attention seekers when they call out harassment. It's a no win situation. Who are these people you are talking about? Also, harrassment is punishable by law (unless you mean in Saudi Arabia). Trolls on the internet, however, are trolls on the internet. About 30% of the population will blame a victim for the rape. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html Yeah, well about 25% of rape accusations are false. Funny how that works out. Note "They stated, "Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained, the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive, about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have "matched" or included the primary suspect." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html#ixzz2S8u0MWPX" That doesn't address the point at all. KwarK is talking about cases where everyone agrees there has been rape, but still the victim is blamed. There might be a high number of false accusations, but that is a different topic. Have you actually checked out the stats in the link? If the woman was drunk, 4pc said she was totally responsible and 26pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman behaved in a flirtatious manner, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 28pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman failed to say "no" clearly to the man, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 29pc said she was partially responsible. If the woman was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 20pc said she was partially responsible. If it is known that the woman has many sexual partners, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 14pc said she was partially responsible. If she is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area, 5pc said she was totally responsible and 17pc said she was partially responsible. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-369262/Women-blame-raped.html#ixzz2S8v4cB3t Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Run with me for a second: guy and girl hook up at a party or whatever. Everything goes down consensually. Next day, girl wakes up and realize her social reputation has suffered/she let herself get a bit out of line or whatever and regrets it. Did the guy rape her? No, of course not. Regret =/= rape. Now, check out the stats. Hmmm, basically the majority of people find the woman "partially responsible" if they see indicators that she was consensual at the time, but came to regret it later. She was flirty or dressed up, she's been known to sleep around a bit before, she was getting herself drunk as a social excuse or she didn't actually say no, more like "we really shouldn't be doing this...*quivers and kisses guy*" (trans: if you take responsibility for the situation, i'm ok with this) With the exception of the dark alley, people think that it's suspect to call the guy a rapist when the girl was exhibiting classic signs of consensuality at the time and regret later. What you have done here is create a hypothetical in which rape didn't happen and used it to disprove rape as a concept. Unfortunately logic took a pretty severe hit in the process. You're right, if no rape took place then no rape took place. However if the women says "no" when asked if she would like to have sex then the fact that she was wearing sexy clothing does not make her refusal to consent ambiguous. If the woman says "no" when asked if she wants to have sex, is forced to have sex but has many sexual partners then 14% of people think she was partially to blame. It's that simple. Well rape is reported by the woman, after the fact, right? So if it's actually NOT a rape, but the woman later regrets it and reports it
OK, stop right there. Now you're just changing the debate into something else. Namely, the commonly trotted out "false rape accusation". Oh, it certainly happens. But so do false murder accusations, false theft accusations, etc. That's why we have a criminal justice system to sort out the false accusations from the true ones.
And generally speaking, false rape accusations aren't due to "regret"; they're due to malice. If a person falsely reports rape, odds are very good that it's because that person wants to hurt the other one.
On May 02 2013 23:11 NDDseer wrote:
and the guy gets convicted, it gets reported as "well the woman was raped, it definitely wasn't a regret case". The guy can't say "we didn't have sex", cos they did, consensually. However, the statistics show about 30% of people believe that there is probably quite a bit of "regret" going on in there, which is partially or totally the woman's responsibility in cases where indicators of likely consensual promiscuity such as drinking, dressing up, flirting exist.
The fact that 30% of people believe something does not make it true. Indeed, the fact that 30% of people believe that a lot of rape accusations are both false and due to "regret" only shows that there are a lot of fucking stupid people out there. The fact that "people" might blame the woman for being raped if she was wearing skimpy clothing does not justify raping women!
The existence of stupidity (and especially assholes) does not change reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
