h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A woman tells you of how she was raped at gunpoint at 15 and you call her a moron.

"The real world is obviously far too painful for you. "

...because you have a better grasp on the painfulness of the real world than victims of sexual assault, right?

This is absolutely the last post I'm making on this thread, as I posted at the same time as Krispy so I couldn't include an answer to him in my last post.

"That you could in all seriousness suggest that a woman is even *remotely* responsible for a man's inability to control his urge to have sex with her against her will is the most hideous abrogation of personal responsibility I've encountered on here."

It would be, if that's what I'd suggested.

However, if you READ WHAT I WROTE, I didn't say that.

I suggested that a woman *might*, in certain circumstances, be partly responsible for an act of sexual intercourse which she later claims not to have consented to.

When I'm talking about "personal responsibility", and its abrogation, I'm talking about the responsibility of the WOMAN - if it exists. There is self-evidently NO personal responsibility incumbent on a 92-year-old woman in her own home. Equally there is none incumbent on a 15 year old at a bus stop, say.

But...

Is a 17-year old in a hotel room with three footballers responsible for being there? She has not been kidnapped, attacked, or in any way forced to be in that situation. She is there because she chose to be, for reasons of her own. Has she ANY responsibility for what happens next?

I say yes.

You, it seems, say no.

So don't, please, talk to me about abrogation of responsibility.

<>

Well, that explains a lot then, doesn't it?

Meanwhile, you have been unspeakably rude and hurtful towards another researcher. She deserves an apology.


az

Member wrote...
"This is absolutely the last post I'm making on this thread,"

Promise?
And thank you for giving the exceptions that proof the rule in terms of the arguements I offered.

Has anyone reported this troll yet?

My apologies to anhaga for the mockery of his original intent this thread has become.

Okay, so if I'd read what you said properly, as I hope I am now doing, you've stated that there is at least, in some cases, the potential for the victim to be accountable for allowing him or herself to be in the situation that precipitates the assault.

I'd agree that to walk into a Govan pub and ask where the guys in skirts are would be clear stupidity, but it is not the sort of stupidity that *forces* the regulars of that establishment to ignore any condition of conscience that may prevent them from allowing *their* forearm to connect with the idiot in question's face in such a manner as might cause them physical harm or even death. The use of one's body is determined by the decision-making process of its owner, and I maintain that no responsibility can or should ever be incumbent on the target of the owner's incapacity for restraint.

It may be a sad fact of life that people are so priapic as to require that sort of caution when approached, but it should not ever infer that the consequences of failure to heed that caution means that the protagonist is not responsible for his or her decision to prove it was necessary, and it certainly doesn't behove the unfortunate person in question to have responsibility for, or control over, the protagonist's central nervous system.

As a point of clarification the 92yo was in the street.

Just because I'm someone who always tries to right the boat onto an even keel:

> "Woman accuses man of rape, causes him months of stress, costs him
> his marriage and job, then admits she made the whole thing up and
> gets away scot free".

> So this is personal experience, is it? Or is it a ridiculous example > just like the *quote* it is suppose to rebut?


I think this refers to several recent high profile cases, including John Leslie. In some of these cases the accused man did lose everything, job, relationship, status, even though the women did admit to totally making it up.

Having said that:

"Only a tiny percentage of rape allegations turn out to be false. "
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3114257.stm

But, the false accuser is punished in at least some cases. Nadine Milroy-Sloan who accused the Hamiltons received a three year sentence for perverting the course of justice.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3055859.stm


On a more personal note, I'm shocked by the level of personal attacks in this thread. One person calmly clarifies their opinion, another person harrangs and abuses them.

I always remember the quote, although I have forgotten the person:

"I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to my last breath your right to say it."

""Only a tiny percentage of rape allegations turn out to be false. "
Source:..."

The "source" in this case turns out to be a writer - not a law enforcer with access to statistics - stating an opinion, rather than an actual source of facts.

Here's a source of actual stats: http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2002/000010.html

And in particular: "analyses of incidents involving a Toronto police squad that restricts itself to handling major rape cases where the assailant is unknown to the victim, a whopping 30 percent of cases -- 69 out of 232 cases -- turned out to be false."

Also: "Ontario tracks not just unfounded rape cases, but also tracks outright false sexual assault allegations. [...] about 5.7 percent of all such allegations are false. A very small percentage, but in the four years of using the system, that accounts for 2,235 sexual assault allegations that later turned out to be false. "

'I'm also slightly baffled at the phrase "a holocaust"'

yes, member, you are. As I've mentioned a few times, we're not on the same page. As you've hinted a few times, we're not in the same reality.

Here's a little focus. Mullet started this thread with the claim that feminists "want to keep the advantages of women while seizing those of men"

Well, no they don't. Mullet is wrong. Mullet doesn't say "some feminists". Mullet states it as a characteristic of "feminists"

I'm a feminist. As I'm a man, I don't have any of the advantages of being a woman and I certainly am not seizing those of men, as I already have those. Mullet's statement was ill-informed in the extreme and would have been laughable if it were not so inflamatory.

It is clear that by definition the initial resolution of this thread is an absurdity. There can then be no possibility of true debate on that resolution, no matter how many other red herrings, trolls, ill-informed opinions or arbitrary rules may be brought up to obfuscate the absurdity of the original resolution.

I've been away for a few days but I've read the backlog.
If we are to learn anything from such disasters we need to be objective at some point about the "Why." I am in a position at the moment with young men on a poor council estate on the outskirts of London who have been led to believe that they won't get a job because the immigrants are getting them all. They won't get a house because the immigrants are getting them all. Their sisters will be abducted and abused by immigrants and if they don't stand up for themselves they will be overrun.
They are angry and afraid - and (as far as statistics can tell us) wrong.
If nothing is done to explain to them the error of their thinking; nothing is done to bring them into contact with the people they fear and hear their stories of hope, fear and tragedy they will become the perpetrators of evil in the very near future.
I am interested to know what happened to the guy who pulled the trigger in Canada. Why did he hate women enough to carry out such an act? Who had fuelled his anger? Who had reinforced his "crooked" thinking? Maybe people told him that women _were_ stealing his job. Maybe people told him he _was_ worthless.
If we can't begin to answer these questions - and sometimes it will be painful for us - then we will never stop the evil.

Now to one of member's frightening points:

"Yes. Welcome to the real world. Some of us are born poor, some are born disabled, some are born ugly. Some are born rich, fit and good looking. The best we can do is treat everyone as equal under the law, and try to educate our children to do the same, despite their instincts to the contrary."

So. Over here we have wheelchair ramps on street corners and at the entrances to buildings. Should we rip them out to level the playing field? My disabled daughter is in a special programme at here school. Should I pull her out and put her into a regular class to level the playing field? We have a food bank in town. I guess I should stop contributing so that we can have a level playing field. We have taxes here that pay for a fire department. I guess we should disband the fire department since most people never use its services. And I guess we should go back to pay as you go healthcare: it's tough luck for those who get sick, but that's your real world.

Member, your arguments - all your arguments - were worn out and transparent decades ago. It's like my friend who was quite content when our government paid compensation to descendents of Japanese-Canadians who were dispossessed during the Second World War but he couldn't extend that same contentment to issues surrounding First Nations people who had been dispossessed only a short time earlier. I'm sure you don't mind the help disabled people get, but for your own reasons you can't extend that understanding to a larger segment of society which is also born disadvantaged. For that larger group, it's tough luck.

Personally, I'd rather live in the real world where a civil society reaches out to the disadvantaged and gives them a hand up. Your "tough luck" "reality" (which I'm sure doesn't actually exist in Britain) sounds rather sad and unpleasant.


Member, despite your rather sweeping insult to men (which you deny making, I know) and despite your holocaust denial (which you don't understand that you made, I know [read what you wrote]) I have no desire to sit about flaming. I wish you would consider what I've mentioned above about my friend's difficulty with the idea of redressing past injustices against First Nations. I wish you would consider what I've mentioned above about the "advantages" we give to disabled people. I hope you will reconsider your conclusion that all we can do is provide equal legislation.

Now, to something Member wrote that shows that he does, in fact, agree with us all:

'Post 66: " If social conventions in general favour men, then virtually all statutes favour men. Men start closer to the finish line. This is something hard to recognize for those closer to the finish line."

That is a very good point. Which leads on to the question - which is it better to do? Move the *finish* line, so men and women effectively run on *completely* different tracks, and give up any pretence of a level playing field? Or try to move the *start* line - because that's what EQUALITY would mean, and I'm all in favour.'

You're all in favour, Member. I'm glad. Trying to move the start line is the only thing I've been suggesting from the beginning. That is what feminists efforts have been directed toward. That is what all civil societies try to do. I take it that since you are in favour of moving the start line, you agree that men and women don't start in the same place. If this is true, then you don't really believe in the "tough luck" scenerio outlined above. This is a relief.

I suspect the disagreement we've been experiencing comes from the problem of what to do with people living today who were born before the start line got moved and so are still trying to overcome the disadvantage. My view (and Canada's view) is that we give them a hand up (we put in wheelchair ramps). I would be saddened if your view were that we say "tough luck" to them.

I find it sad that despite a statement of agreement on fundamental theory there has been so much bitterness. I suspect the bitterness has been pointless.

Vestboy: Concerning the man with the gun. If you check out the link to gendercide.com at the end of the entry you will find out more about what was going on. The situation of the young men you work with was parallel to his: he came from a cultural background which devalued women; as I've mentioned here, despicable jokes about wife-beating were made in Parliament. He had had a number of failures in his life including not being accepted to l'ecole polytechnique.

You're absolutely right: education is vital. Education is what came about spontaneously after the murders particularly in Universities and schools across the country, but also in coffee shops, homes, and Parliament.

If the education continues and progress continues, then no one will be able to deny that the fourteen women will truly have made a sacrifice for the betterment of society.

Wanting to be brief since I'm off to work, not wanting to be antagonistic since I've lost my temper here before (apologies to all), and wanting to explain what I meant:

*Post 68: "*Do you therefore accept that there is the *possibility* that a woman could be "asking for it"?*
No, because then it isn't rape, is it? "
WHAT?*

It's not rape if she in deed *asks for it* because it is consentual. If she claims rape, the law broken is not that of rape but of false claim and subsequent false arrest. Further damages would be assesable by the male in civil court.

" If a woman claims it is then she's breaking the existing law"

*EXACTLY MY F**KING POINT. And this sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME, yet there is still the gender bias in the law which guarantees the complainant - I don't say "victim" because by definition in the cases I'm talking about the victim is MALE - anonymity, while guaranteeing the defendant none. So EVEN IF she breaks the law, she is
(a) guaranteed anonymity
(b) hardly ever punished.*

Well at least I am not the only person who loses their temper. *ALL THE TIME*? Your own statistics show it in the average to be well below 10%. I've been falsely accused of theft twice in my life, but never of rape. I will endeavour to discover the statistics for that and other crimes. The anonymity you speak of is an unfortunate by product of the rape shield law and given the statistics you quoted it provides much more good than harm, wouldn't you agree? I'm sure your significant other and you would both agree should you be in the unfortunate situation it covers. As to *hardly ever punished* again, I would like to see statistics on that since I believe many judicial systems provide civil law alternatives for redress of that problem. If yours does not, as I said then that is a problem that indeed needs an overhaul. If in fact you can't overhaul the system and believe that a cabal of feminists are the cause, then perhaps you need to study further.

Yes, clzoomer, all the time. Read the numbers.

"Your own statistics show it in the average to be well below 10%."

Or, if you actually look at the numbers and consider for a moment what they mean, the AVERAGE is that in the Ontario district concerned, the unit that dealt ONLY with serious accusations against people not known to the victim, received on average over 1.5 proven false reports, EVERY DAY, seven days a week, for FOUR YEARS. So yes... all the time.

"I've been falsely accused of theft twice in my life, but never of rape."

You and I aren't statistically representative samples, which is why I quoted a law enforcement department's statistics. As I've said before, it's very, very easy to get into a "highest up the wall" competition based on things that happen to people you know. It means nothing.

What concerns me is that nobody seems in any way concerned that according to the best statistical evidence I can find, almost one in three men accused of rape by a woman they don't know is innocent, and the woman is lying. Society is quick to condemn rapists, why is it so slow to condemn the women who exploit that condemnation for their own ends, dishonestly?

"As to *hardly ever punished* again, I would like to see statistics on that"

To be honest, since you and others seem so determined to ignore or wilfully misinterpret the statistics I *have* provided, I can't see the point.

"since I believe many judicial systems provide civil law alternatives for redress of that problem."

The ONLY thing civil law can do is award a victim financial compensation. This is
(a) only any use if the woman who lied about the rape is rich, which they almost never are, and
(b) does nothing to reverse the damage done to a person's reputation.

An ounce of prevention is surely better than a pound of cure, so why not just PREVENT these women from damaging these men's lives, and incidentally prevent them from giving people like me an excuse to complain about men being "victims" in rape cases?

Much as though it pains me to admit it on this subject I agree with Member when it comes to the naming of people accused of Rape.

The stuff about allowing other victims to come out when they know someone else has already accused is absolute tosh. Lets be clear here there is a *large* proportion of the population whom think "There is no smoke without fire"; thus being named in the press as someone accused of rape *irrevocably* tarnishes your name.

This is not fair; I really think that both parties should be entitles to anonimity until such a time as the criminal trial is concluded. Even then if the accused is found not guilty then his name should still not be revealed.

For the record though I disagree with most of the rest of what you said Memeber but I suppose you already know that given we have already had this argument before.

I can understand the angst caused by being named as an alleged rapist, having been threatened with that by an Ex. Yet I wouldnt want the way things work being changed. This is because:

We do need the exposure to jog the memories of witnesses and possibly bring forward other victims. Rape is not unique in this as most other defendants are named in public too.

We need people who feel scared and disorientated to have their annonimoty protected. Scared people will not come forward for what will be a painful experience if they are in fear of everyone being aware of the "shame" they feel.

Question for Member as you seem to think you know about such things just so I can advise young women I work with: Where between totally naked and full purdah does the line come in terms of attire where they are "asking for it"

"We do need the exposure to jog the memories of witnesses and possibly bring forward other victims."

Sorry to disagree mate but I really think that this is tosh; innocent peoples lives are *irrevocably* ruined when such allegations are made. There can be no removal of the name dragged through mud effect look what has happened to John Leslie. If someone is found guilty of such a crime they should be named I have no problem. However with our society as it is just being named in conjuction with rape is tantamount to being punished.

"Rape is not unique in this as most other defendants are named in public too."

I recognise that this is the case but I also think that this is wrong. People (who are allegedly "Innocent until proven guilty") should be IMHO also entitled to anonimity for all the same reasons I stated above. Being named and shamed *before* the verdict in the trial is being punished regardless.

Member, I am not "ignor(ing) or wilfully misinterpret(ing)" the statistics you yourself provided.

If anything I am ignoring the fact that they come from a site with an obvious bias and they quote only those statistics that are useful to them. First of all, Ontario had 5.7 percent, BC had 6.7 percent, and the city of Toronto had 30 percent. Taking the only figures provided that makes an average of 7.5 which is, as I said less than 10 percent. This of course is ignoring the larger database of the entire rest of the country or even worldwide. Cherry picking statistics is an old but rather stale trick.

Whoah whoah whoah whoah whoah. I've been away for a few days and just discovered this. I'm not going to pretend that I've read all of the preceeding 95 posts. I just feel now that I just retaste my point more clearly. I am fully aware that "the system" is biased in favour of men. There are many ways in which I dislike "the system" and that is one of them. There are just some areas that I feel we may over be step the boundaries a little and wind up giving, in general, more rights to women than men. I know that at the moment all of the things that are meant to be equal aren't. But if women were payed exactly the same as mean et cetera and they were also given the OTHER rights some people say they should have then they would have MORE rights than men. There was one thread asking for an example. One little example. And the one that springs readily to mind is abortion. Let me restate this. If women were given everything they want (and,in my opinion, should have, as I said, I AM a liberal guy and I do believe in equal rights) and were also given the sole right to decide whether or not to have in abortion then they would have more rights. This probaly isn't the best example, but I hear the argument that it's their body so their right to decide. And I feel that the father should be allowed to participate in the choice to. These are the rights of men that I support. So I am a masculinist, I support the rights of men. Logically I am also a feminist since I really do want women to have equal rights. I just mean that I see some feminists who go too far in their pursuit of "equal" rights and seem to have the view that women are actually better. These are the type I dislike and I apologise for any confusion.

Ferrett, not naming defendants, how is that going to work?

In terms of bringing forwards other victims it is the number one cause. Im not asking you to forget all the high profile cases you have heard about or the ones you may know personally. I even want you to imagine all the cases you may not know about where people are irreovacbly tainted by being the subject of an accusation.

They still amount to less than the numbers of women who are actually raped. They still amount to less than the estimated numbers of women who do not come forward because they fear the whole trial process and the f****d-up snide remarks of people like Member who will instantly try to cast aspertions in her direction as well. Think how the naming of the plaintiff would further reduce those willing to bring cases.

I know that this is not what you want. I bring it up because as I have said before the system is waited to the alleged victims with good reason. Even naming those whose allegations fail would deter many real victims and to name and highlight those who make deliberately false accusations would in a round about way bring more prejudice to bare against other victims.

Being accused and possibly tried for rape must be hell if you are innocent and going to jail which is almost certain if you're found guilty in error is a great injustice. However Im sure you are aware of how rape affects the victim for the rest of their lives and that allowing a rapist to walk out of court unpunished, unknown and emboldened as can be the case by an aquital is another but (IMHO) greater injustice. Not naming the defendant can mean that no other witnessses or victims come forward and how is that serving justice?

<>

Well, yes. And of course those women never end up in statistics studies.

I thought it was a criminal offense to wrongly accuse somebody of a crime? If all the women who do this *are* actually walking away scott-free then I certainly think this should change. But I would say, although it is not a perfect solution, that due to the nature of the crime I think it is better to name the defendent and withhold the name of the woman.

az