|
On May 02 2013 23:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:13 NDDseer wrote: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.
You are ignoring my argument.
Your points are based on the premise that either reported/convicted rapes (take your pick) are 100% comprised of ACTUAL rapes.
My argument is, that of the 100% of reported/convicted rapes (again, your call) a large portion of them are probably cases of REGRET, where the woman consents at the time but afterwards wishes she hadn't, so reports it as rape anyway.
The statistics average at about 30% of people finding some blame with the "victim" (an overwhelming majority think she is "partially to blame") in cases where they see evidence that it was probably actually a case of regret, ie. the woman was drinking, being flirty, dressing up or whatever.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:23 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:18 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:13 NDDseer wrote: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. You are ignoring my argument. Your points are based on the premise that either reported/convicted rapes (take your pick) are 100% comprised of ACTUAL rapes. My argument is, that of the 100% of reported/convicted rapes (again, your call) a large portion of them are probably cases of REGRET, where the woman consents at the time but afterwards wishes she hadn't, so reports it as rape anyway. The statistics average at about 30% of people finding some blame with the "victim" (an overwhelming majority think she is "partially to blame") in cases where they see evidence that it was probably actually a case of regret, ie. the woman was drinking, being flirty, dressing up or whatever.
In this post you both try to fight your corner but at the same time unknowingly admit that blaming the victims is ok :/
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:23 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:18 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:13 NDDseer wrote: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. You are ignoring my argument. Your points are based on the premise that either reported/convicted rapes (take your pick) are 100% comprised of ACTUAL rapes. My argument is, that of the 100% of reported/convicted rapes (again, your call) a large portion of them are probably cases of REGRET, where the woman consents at the time but afterwards wishes she hadn't, so reports it as rape anyway. The statistics average at about 30% of people finding some blame with the "victim" (an overwhelming majority think she is "partially to blame") in cases where they see evidence that it was probably actually a case of regret, ie. the woman was drinking, being flirty, dressing up or whatever.
That is not what the survey asked. You are changing the question to excuse the results. The question was "which of these factors do you think makes a rape the fault of the victim" to which 30% answered that some of them did.
You cannot change the question in order to make the results more palatable. Reality doesn't work that way. The question made the assumption that a rape definitely happened.
You don't get to change the question in order to make the survey agree with your world view. If you want a survey which would show which factors people believe suggest a false rape accusation you have to hold your own because this survey did not ask that question.
|
On May 02 2013 23:00 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 22:52 Hairy wrote:
I don't see why it's such a big ask for people not to be assholes. Is it really that hard? There's no reason to be a dick, there's no excuse for being a dick, and there's no valid reason to defend dickheads. People shouldn't need to have "think skins" on the internet, it should be possible to be on the net without being harassed. It's very simple.
If you value the pleasure you (or others) get through harassment more than how the recipient of harassment feels, I'd suggest you have a long think about what you're really arguing for. The one to find offense is always the recipient. If I walk outside with a shirt that says "I like the colour green" and you are offended by that, who's fault is it, me or you? This is a ridiculous example, but it illustrates the point. Likewise, if I go out with a shirt that says "Black pride" and I'm white, if you're black you might be offended, even though I am blatantly supporting a cause that you do. Also note that the taking of offense is independent of whether the person who's being "offensive" is INTENDING to cause offense or not. It's quite different if get in a car with the INTENTION of killing someone and subsequently do, or if I get in the car with the INTENTION of going somewhere and because it's dark and they jump out on the road I still kill someone.
You are correct that what people will be offended by is, to an extent, subjective... but that fact is almost irrelevant. We're talking about comments such as "yo bitch! Do you swallow?", which I'm sure (or at least I hope) that everyone agrees is an crass, unnecessary thing to say, and that its intent is to make the target of the question uncomfortable.
The problem we're talking about here isn't one where people are accidentally offending others, but are doing so intentionally. Accidentally offending people is occasionally going to happen and can't really be helped, but it's VERY easy to avoid intentionally offending people; don't be a dickhead. Simple.
|
On May 02 2013 23:23 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:18 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:13 NDDseer wrote: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. You are ignoring my argument. Your points are based on the premise that either reported/convicted rapes (take your pick) are 100% comprised of ACTUAL rapes. My argument is, that of the 100% of reported/convicted rapes (again, your call) a large portion of them are probably cases of REGRET, where the woman consents at the time but afterwards wishes she hadn't, so reports it as rape anyway.
That's not an "argument". Well, it is, but it's not an argument based on facts. It's an argument based on your own preconceptions.
Also, convicting on rape is very difficult, especially in date-rape situations. There's no reason you should feel any less sure that a person convicted of rape is guilty than a person convicted of theft or burglary. Not unless you have some hard statistics to back up your implied suggestion that rape convictions are less accurate than other convictions.
|
On May 02 2013 23:23 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:04 KwarK wrote: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:
[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 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. Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:11 NDDseer wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Show nested quote +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 does not change reality.
How much experience do you have with the interactions of adult men and women? Gotta say, your tag being named after a MTG card is not strong evidence in your favour.
Let me drop a knowledge bomb on you, women don't dress up in skimpy clothing to impress their female friends, they do it to impress men and try attract suitors. Everyone else is aware of this fact. Hence, if a woman dresses up, goes home with a guy, wakes up the next morning thinking "that was a bad idea" then later reports it as rape there is a reasonable probability she was not suddenly dragged into a dark alley, knocked out and physically violated. More likely, she advertised for attention, was given some, accepted a guy's advances, went home with him consensually and then the next morning thought "am I glad I did that? Not really, oh, so it must have been rape". People have trouble finding the woman completely innocent of blame when they observe women advertising their sexual availability (again, drinking, dressing up, flirting) and it ending in sex.
|
On May 02 2013 23:19 Kotreb wrote: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?
I'm pretty sure you would treat this as a straw man, because you are setting her up to be the feminist who actually doesn't wan't equality, but wants to be treated better than men.
I think most people would agree that if the above person existed, then they are being quite hypocritical.
|
On May 02 2013 19:02 ShiroKaisen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 18:59 MasterOfPuppets wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Before I record the videos I create for various different companies I change my shirt from the loosely fitting singlet I usually wear during the day, to a high-collared t-shirt that will minimise my chances of being objectified. It’s less comfortable, it’s not what I would generally choose to wear, but I do it in attempt to avoid comments about my breasts, my chest, and my physique in general – I try to negate any harassment I possibly can.
So you purposefully make yourself physically uncomfortable and repress a little of your sexuality because you're bothered by random internet users? Seriously? Are you new to the internet? Do you not understand how this thing works? That's like IdrA not playing StarCraft anymore because someone told him he's not a good player. lmao
Obviously, it doesn’t work. Instead of having people disregard gender entirely as it really shouldn’t be relevant to a video about game news, there are streams of responses from men complaining that a woman hasn’t revealed herself to them, as though it’s expected or it’s their right to ask for that. Not only is this incredibly discouraging – these videos take hours and hours of effort to create – it’s easy to feel like you simply can’t win. You can only ignore the comments, but that would make responding to the pleasant viewers or the ones who ask genuine questions impossible.
Nope. It's not impossible. Many people manage to ignore trolls and uneducated children, even on Twitch whose chat is a cancerous cesspool, or YouTube comments ffs.
If jerks on the internet are given a free-pass and allowed to hide behind anonymity when they’re being sexist to someone, then there’s absolutely no reason you can’t use that same anonymity to criticise or educate them. Honestly, just seeing one down-vote or having one person stick up for me is a part of the reason I’m still here and I’m not going to stop fighting. Every single person has the power to fight sexism.
Is this woman stupid? People on the internet are given a free-pass to do and say far more than just being sexist to some uptight, sensitive and easily-offended woman like her who apparently doesn't understand how the internet works or that you can't censor it. I mean lmao, I'm not a big deal, but in my many years of competitive gaming I've had hundreds if not thousands of people call me a no-life, a basement dweller, a loser (all of which baseless assumptions ofc) and wishing things like death and cancer and rape on me and my family, JUST BECAUSE I BEAT THEM AT VIDEO GAMES. Do you think that affected me in any way, shape or form? No lol. I just laugh and brush it off, and it even makes me feel better about myself that these people are so easily irritated. Protip to her: stop being butthurt, either get off the Internet or learn to deal with. Seriously. Re-assess your life: does it really mean that much to you that some kiddies on the other side of the world purposefully post mean or "sexist" things about you just to get you riled up? Because you're kinda getting trolled here hun, getting trolled big time if you acknowledge their presence. So because it sucks, we shouldn't complain about it and try to change it? That's a shitty attitude.
TL has a lot of these guys. men's rights activist who jump at all opportunities to tell women to shut up like he just did. Of course he would have that mindset, he's one of the people putting a women's experience down right now.
|
More feminist nonsense.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 02 2013 23:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:23 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 23:18 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:13 NDDseer wrote: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. You are ignoring my argument. Your points are based on the premise that either reported/convicted rapes (take your pick) are 100% comprised of ACTUAL rapes. My argument is, that of the 100% of reported/convicted rapes (again, your call) a large portion of them are probably cases of REGRET, where the woman consents at the time but afterwards wishes she hadn't, so reports it as rape anyway. The statistics average at about 30% of people finding some blame with the "victim" (an overwhelming majority think she is "partially to blame") in cases where they see evidence that it was probably actually a case of regret, ie. the woman was drinking, being flirty, dressing up or whatever. That is not what the survey asked. You are changing the question to excuse the results. The question was "which of these factors do you think makes a rape the fault of the victim" to which 30% answered that some of them did. You cannot change the question in order to make the results more palatable. Reality doesn't work that way. The question made the assumption that a rape definitely happened. You don't get to change the question in order to make the survey agree with your world view. If you want a survey which would show which factors people believe suggest a false rape accusation you have to hold your own because this survey did not ask that question.
I'm not reading in the article where anyone is blaming it all on the woman. They find her partially responsible as in she has her share in the blame. It doesn't absolve the man from his actions, it just find woman partially to blame. It is a gray area since there is a range of things that one can do while never explicitly saying "yes".
I'm wondering if the issue lies in the taboo nature of sex in western society. If having sex is something as explicitly as say asking someone out for a game of basket ball, there would be no confusion. Instead there's a long list of rituals, innuendos, and signals that one must wade through before knowing just where a relationship is going. That invariably means there's gray areas on where consent lies. Probably doesn't apply for everyone but just a thought.
|
On May 02 2013 23:33 ain wrote:
More feminist nonsense.
You think gender equality is nonsense?
|
I'll say that no woman is responsible for being raped. However, a woman is responsible for her own safety. When she is raped, it's not her fault as in she shouldn't be blamed at all for it and the POS that did it should have his goddamn balls cut off with a rusty, dull knife. But that doesn't mean I can't say that she shouldn't have gotten black-out drunk, shouldn't have gone home with that guy, and shouldn't have been wearing those clothes in that area at that time. I can't be blamed for getting my ass beat just for walking down the street. But that doesn't mean I should go walking down streets that I know are in the middle of gang-land USA. I shouldn't have my shoes stolen from me. But that doesn't mean I should get black-out drunk at a party. And if I do these things, than I should not be surprised that something bad happened.
I think a lot of people are dumb when they take surveys so they say: "Yeah, she is partly to blame" when they don't really mean it like that. Most of them (I hope) probably mean: "Why the fuck did she allow herself to be put in that situation? She wasn't being safe." rather than: "She put herself in that position so she deserves it." If they mean she deserves it, than they are fucking creeps and they need to be punched in the nutsack. If they think that she was dumb for putting herself in that position, and that the vulnerability was her fault, than they are just being realistic.
Now I understand that some women are straight-up raped with no reasonable ability to prevent it, and no amount of safety measures would have stopped it from happening. But a decent amount of rapes are able to occur because the woman has exposed herself. It's completely and totally unfair that I can pass out in public and probably will just be robbed at worst and never be raped. But that doesn't change the fact that a woman can, and should, take measures to keep herself out of harms way. Don't trust other people to take care of you when you are black-out drunk: even your friends. Don't go home with guys who aren't your boyfriend. Don't walk around in dark places alone. Make sure you always know who is around you and what they are doing. These are pretty simple things that can prevent you from becoming a victim. If you don't do these things, you are at fault for not securing your person. You are NOT at fault for someone taking advantage of your vulnerability.
TL;DR:
I think the 30% statistic is misleading and disheartening at the same time.
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:31 NDDseer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:23 NicolBolas wrote:On May 02 2013 23:04 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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 does not change reality. How much experience do you have with the interactions of adult men and women? Gotta say, your tag being named after a MTG card is not strong evidence in your favour. Let me drop a knowledge bomb on you, women don't dress up in skimpy clothing to impress their female friends, they do it to impress men and try attract suitors. Everyone else is aware of this fact. Hence, if a woman dresses up, goes home with a guy, wakes up the next morning thinking "that was a bad idea" then later reports it as rape there is a reasonable probability she was not suddenly dragged into a dark alley, knocked out and physically violated. More likely, she advertised for attention, was given some, accepted a guy's advances, went home with him consensually and then the next morning thought "am I glad I did that? Not really, oh, so it must have been rape". People have trouble finding the woman completely innocent of blame when they observe women advertising their sexual availability (again, drinking, dressing up, flirting) and it ending in sex.
I think you're probably actually a rapist. No hyperbole. Based on your expression of your opinions I find it likely that you have, at some time, decided that a woman who was wearing something too revealing or drank a little too much had consented even though she said no or was unable to consent due to drugs.
|
On May 02 2013 23:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 19:02 ShiroKaisen wrote:On May 02 2013 18:59 MasterOfPuppets wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Before I record the videos I create for various different companies I change my shirt from the loosely fitting singlet I usually wear during the day, to a high-collared t-shirt that will minimise my chances of being objectified. It’s less comfortable, it’s not what I would generally choose to wear, but I do it in attempt to avoid comments about my breasts, my chest, and my physique in general – I try to negate any harassment I possibly can.
So you purposefully make yourself physically uncomfortable and repress a little of your sexuality because you're bothered by random internet users? Seriously? Are you new to the internet? Do you not understand how this thing works? That's like IdrA not playing StarCraft anymore because someone told him he's not a good player. lmao
Obviously, it doesn’t work. Instead of having people disregard gender entirely as it really shouldn’t be relevant to a video about game news, there are streams of responses from men complaining that a woman hasn’t revealed herself to them, as though it’s expected or it’s their right to ask for that. Not only is this incredibly discouraging – these videos take hours and hours of effort to create – it’s easy to feel like you simply can’t win. You can only ignore the comments, but that would make responding to the pleasant viewers or the ones who ask genuine questions impossible.
Nope. It's not impossible. Many people manage to ignore trolls and uneducated children, even on Twitch whose chat is a cancerous cesspool, or YouTube comments ffs.
If jerks on the internet are given a free-pass and allowed to hide behind anonymity when they’re being sexist to someone, then there’s absolutely no reason you can’t use that same anonymity to criticise or educate them. Honestly, just seeing one down-vote or having one person stick up for me is a part of the reason I’m still here and I’m not going to stop fighting. Every single person has the power to fight sexism.
Is this woman stupid? People on the internet are given a free-pass to do and say far more than just being sexist to some uptight, sensitive and easily-offended woman like her who apparently doesn't understand how the internet works or that you can't censor it. I mean lmao, I'm not a big deal, but in my many years of competitive gaming I've had hundreds if not thousands of people call me a no-life, a basement dweller, a loser (all of which baseless assumptions ofc) and wishing things like death and cancer and rape on me and my family, JUST BECAUSE I BEAT THEM AT VIDEO GAMES. Do you think that affected me in any way, shape or form? No lol. I just laugh and brush it off, and it even makes me feel better about myself that these people are so easily irritated. Protip to her: stop being butthurt, either get off the Internet or learn to deal with. Seriously. Re-assess your life: does it really mean that much to you that some kiddies on the other side of the world purposefully post mean or "sexist" things about you just to get you riled up? Because you're kinda getting trolled here hun, getting trolled big time if you acknowledge their presence. So because it sucks, we shouldn't complain about it and try to change it? That's a shitty attitude. TL has a lot of these guys. men's rights activist who jump at all opportunities to tell women to shut up like he just did. Of course he would have that mindset, he's one of the people putting a women's experience down right now.
It's so weird, I hadn't even heard of men's rights activists a few years ago, now it's all over the internet.
|
On May 02 2013 23:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:23 NDDseer wrote:On May 02 2013 23:18 KwarK wrote:On May 02 2013 23:13 NDDseer wrote: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. You are ignoring my argument. Your points are based on the premise that either reported/convicted rapes (take your pick) are 100% comprised of ACTUAL rapes. My argument is, that of the 100% of reported/convicted rapes (again, your call) a large portion of them are probably cases of REGRET, where the woman consents at the time but afterwards wishes she hadn't, so reports it as rape anyway. The statistics average at about 30% of people finding some blame with the "victim" (an overwhelming majority think she is "partially to blame") in cases where they see evidence that it was probably actually a case of regret, ie. the woman was drinking, being flirty, dressing up or whatever. That is not what the survey asked. You are changing the question to excuse the results. The question was "which of these factors do you think makes a rape the fault of the victim" to which 30% answered that some of them did. You cannot change the question in order to make the results more palatable. Reality doesn't work that way. The question made the assumption that a rape definitely happened. You don't get to change the question in order to make the survey agree with your world view. If you want a survey which would show which factors people believe suggest a false rape accusation you have to hold your own because this survey did not ask that question.
The statistics we agreed on were these ones:
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
note that EVERY SINGLE "the victim had part of the blame" is ATTACHED to circumstances that cast doubt on whether it was a regret or rape case.
Not one of those statistics says "is a rape victim to blame?" with the response "x% of people say she is"
ALL of those statistics say "is a rape victim to blame IF (... circumstances which indicate it could have been a morning-after regret case, not actual rape)" with the response "x% of people say she was probably at least a bit responsible that sex occurred"
|
I never understood the whole "objectifying" thing. Our bodies are objects. You are your body plus your mind plus your spirit. You have an equal degree of control over your body than you have over your mind, and it defines who you are to the same extent your thoughts do. Some are born deficient and make up for it, others are given gifts and squander them. At any rate, no matter which way you turn it, your body is you. You are not simply the ethereal collection of your thoughts, you are also your body, an object.
Since sex has to do with the body a lot, it is normal to look at persons as objects in the context of sexuality. Unless you are genuinely turned on by smarts (yeah, right) this is just simple reality. Don't want to be "objectified"? Ok then, stop treating your body well, stop masquerading it, stop adorning it, just be ashamed of it and cover it up. There, you are now no longer an "object" and nobody views you in a sexual light. Mission accomplished. Thing is, if they didn't want to talk to you before, they sure won't want to talk to you now, either.
People put their breasts out, accent their ass, paint themselves in make-up and strut around in high heels and then complain of being "objectified". I'd sooner expect them to complain about being "intelectualized" to be honest. When a woman is attracted to me I couldn't care less if she sees me as an object. Of course I am an object, I am made of meat and bone and tendon and I've been working hard on those abs so they can offer her sensory pleasure. Sure, if I want a deep debate about meaningful issues and the person keeps talking about my ass it feels kind of awkward, but in the context of sex I will not be able to pleasure a woman with my interesting views on citizen's basic income or the Norwegian leatherworking industry so what's the point of forcing my character and intellect on her? And if she is genuinely interested, of course, I will gladly present them.
It's tantamount to coming to a debate, punching someone you disagree with in the face and then complaining you are being "intellectualized" when the security drags you out.
|
On May 02 2013 23:31 DR.Ham wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:19 Kotreb wrote: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? I'm pretty sure you would treat this as a straw man, because you are setting her up to be the feminist who actually doesn't wan't equality, but wants to be treated better than men. I think most people would agree that if the above person existed, then they are being quite hypocritical.
This wasn't a hypothetical situation. I've had the pleasure of witnessing that a few times and it sickened me.
Glad that we share the same opinion (hypocrisy).
|
United States41934 Posts
On May 02 2013 23:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I'll say that no woman is responsible for being raped. However, a woman is responsible for her own safety. When she is raped, it's not her fault as in she shouldn't be blamed at all for it and the POS that did it should have his goddamn balls cut off with a rusty, dull knife. But that doesn't mean I can't say that she shouldn't have gotten black-out drunk, shouldn't have gone home with that guy, and shouldn't have been wearing those clothes in that area at that time. I can't be blamed for getting my ass beat just for walking down the street. But that doesn't mean I should go walking down streets that I know are in the middle of gang-land USA. I shouldn't have my shoes stolen from me. But that doesn't mean I should get black-out drunk at a party. And if I do these things, than I should not be surprised that something bad happened.
I think a lot of people are dumb when they take surveys so they say: "Yeah, she is partly to blame" when they don't really mean it like that. Most of them (I hope) probably mean: "Why the fuck did she allow herself to be put in that situation? She wasn't being safe." rather than: "She put herself in that position so she deserves it." If they mean she deserves it, than they are fucking creeps and they need to be punched in the nutsack. If they think that she was dumb for putting herself in that position, and that the vulnerability was her fault, than they are just being realistic.
Now I understand that some women are straight-up raped with no reasonable ability to prevent it, and no amount of safety measures would have stopped it from happening. But a decent amount of rapes are able to occur because the woman has exposed herself. It's completely and totally unfair that I can pass out in public and probably will just be robbed at worst and never be raped. But that doesn't change the fact that a woman can, and should, take measures to keep herself out of harms way. Don't trust other people to take care of you when you are black-out drunk: even your friends. Don't go home with guys who aren't your boyfriend. Don't walk around in dark places alone. Make sure you always know who is around you and what they are doing. These are pretty simple things that can prevent you from becoming a victim. If you don't do these things, you are at fault for not securing your person. You are NOT at fault for someone taking advantage of your vulnerability.
TL;DR:
I think the 30% statistic is misleading and disheartening at the same time.
It is disheartening and I agree that people are really stupid and sometimes confuse "she should have avoided that situation" with "the rapist is not to blame". However things like consuming alcohol, having sexual partners and wearing sexy clothes are things that women have a right to do and if we use them as weapons against women in the defence of rapists then we've made a really, really shitty society.
Basically 30% of people think that women shouldn't have left the kitchen in the first place. Even if their hearts are in the right place and what they really just mean is be smart, they're fucking retarded.
|
On May 02 2013 22:58 BallinWitStalin wrote:
I really feel like the sheer stupidity of your post needs to be addressed.
1) From youtube: \
"In 1862 tax-paying women of legal majority (unmarried women and widows) were again allowed to vote in municipal elections, making Sweden the first country in the world to grant women the right to vote.[51] The right to vote in municipal elections applied only to people of legal majority, which excluded married women, as they were juridically under the guardianship of their husbands. In 1884 the suggestion to grant women the right to vote in national elections was initially voted down in Parliament.[63] In 1902 the Swedish Society for Woman Suffrage was founded. In 1906 the suggestion of women's suffrage was voted down in parliament again.[64] However, the same year, also married women were granted municipal suffrage. In 1909 women were granted eligibility to municipal councils, and in the following 1910–11 municipal elections, forty women were elected to different municipal councils,[64] Gertrud Månsson being the first. In 1914 Emilia Broomé became the first woman in the legislative assembly.[65]
The right to vote in national elections was not returned to women until 1919, and was practised again in the election of 1921, for the first time in 150 years.[10] In the election of 1921 more women than men had the right to vote because women got the right just by turning 21 years old while men had to undergo military service for the right to vote. In a decision 1921 men received the same right as women and this was practised in the election of 1924"
So, in the entire pretty much history of the world, in one country, for one year, for one election, more women had suffrage then men due to a fuck-up by the people who wrote the law that was rectified the same year as a trend towards general universal suffrage. Jesus Christ, 50 years earlier married women weren't even allowed to vote because they were under the guardianship of their husbands (basically, their property). And you're trying to tell me society was set up FOR women, and use women's suffrage in Sweden to argue that they have more power? Honest to god, this point that you make is so f-ing stupid, I don't even know where to begin. There was an entire worldwide suffrage movement to get women the right to vote when men already could...It's not debatable. Men could vote before women. Universally, too. In Sweden, every year except the single anomaly you noted had more men able to vote.
I'm glad you feel that being left out for one election is not a big deal. Because if we ignore the thing about military service, that is what happened to women. It was only in 1918 that most men were given the chance vote. Before that, it was restricted to a only few rich men. It was a system that favored the rich, not a system that favored men.
You are wrong on your last point. Women outnumber men, and so there have always been more women able to vote than men since 1921.
2) Honestly, I couldn't find anything on this one except for the mainstream leftist parties (which are feminist) that actually supported an expansion of the conscription to include women before the draft was scrapped entirely. So maybe some fringe crazy group thought this, I don't know. Otherwise I think you're actually just full of shit on this one.
Perhaps they did support an extension. They still voted no to this, even when it was clear that their own change was not happening.
3) There IS a general consistent 5% unexplainable wage gap between men and women. I think it's less than that in Sweden, though. However, if they make up for it in different benefits, so what? Maybe if you want mothers to be primary caregivers you support them throughout their life. Women also can have more complex medical issues (being pregnant fucking sucks). If the benefits are given on a needs basis, and women need them more, then that's fine. Be more specific, if you think something is unreasonable.
It is explainable and explained.
Making up for it in benefits is a huge thing. They are receiving the same amount of money, without having to work for it.
4) Although male circumcision is definitely questionable, comparing male and female circumcision is absurd. They are totally different things, and one results in a LOT more harm to the individual undergoing it (no foreskin vs. no clitoris? Come the fuck on...)
Removal of the clitoris is just one of many types of female circumcision. There are other types that are perfectly comparable to male circumcision. Would you like to have a guess as to whether those other type are legal?
5) So? Women have to endure pregnancy in their bodies (again, this is actually a serious health issue, I don't understand why more people don't consider how serious it actually is), and are generally the ones left to care for the child if the man leaves. It's their body, their choice. Although related to feminism, this is in general a slightly separate philosophical issue, anyways.
Of course they're left to care for the child if the man leaves, who else would be? Just as men are left to care for the child of the woman leaves. That is beside the point.
I am all for women making the decisions that concern their body. But I am also all for men making decisions that concern their wallets. Let the woman have her child, but don't let her take half a man's pay if he never wanted to have that child. You may google it as "judicial abortion" or "legal paternal surrender" if you're interested. It would be a simple law to make, but there is a complete political apathy on the subject. Why? Because it something that would benefit men.
6) Okay, fine, that's bad. No-one would argue that's a good thing. So let's try to deal with it? It's still pretty weak evidence that society is set up to benefit women over men. And also, I'm pretty sure that would be a very, very recent phenomenon. It still deserves addressing, but isn't a reason to scrap feminism.
Don't you find it interesting that not a single self-labeled Swedish feminist of public note has addressed the issue? When you bring it to the attention of a feminist, they may agree it is a problem and give you the "feminism fights for your issues, too!" line, but they never actually [b]do fight for those issues.
7) I'm going to need a study here on this one. There's so much subjectivity in sentencing, like previous criminal record, degree of violence associated with the crime, etc., that there might be underlying causal trends associated with men and women that result in different sentencing trends.
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/kvinnor-far-lagre-straff-an-man
Basically, you define feminism a specific doctrine requiring a subscription to "patriarchy theory", and then when people disagree with your definition, you still use it in your attacks on feminism. Personally, I generally agree with patriarchy theory, although it is weakening (pre-1990s or so, though, 100% was true, and it still is present today in most developed countries and indisputably present in the third world). But most people I know define feminism as equality between sexes. It's just that women have, indisputably, been the persecuted sex for the vast, vast majority of human history. Hence the term "feminism".
It is not indisputable, because I dispute it. Society has always been very concerned with giving women (as a group) what they want, and making men (as a group) work for it. That has benefited some men, but far from all. It has also disadvantaged some women, but, again, far from all.
|
On May 02 2013 23:38 Kotreb wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 23:31 DR.Ham wrote:On May 02 2013 23:19 Kotreb wrote: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? I'm pretty sure you would treat this as a straw man, because you are setting her up to be the feminist who actually doesn't wan't equality, but wants to be treated better than men. I think most people would agree that if the above person existed, then they are being quite hypocritical. This wasn't a hypothetical situation. I've had the pleasure of witnessing that a few times and it sickened me. Glad that we share the same opinion (hypocrisy).
Yeah, that's a shame, I guess some people will always be jerks. Still, the majority of people seem to be pretty reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
