Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
older

Franklin Graham: Attempted rape not a crime. Kavanaugh "respected" his victim by not finishing.

Recommended Posts

I've been following this conversation for a while but haven't chimed in yet.  I'm a woman, so this is my personal perspective.  No, it's not the majority of men who are criminals, but the majority response/view of many of the issues women have had to deal with from men over decades has been one of "it's not that big a deal.". Kind of like saying "it's just a white lie, get over it" attitude.  Maybe it doesn't seem like a big deal to you, but to us it can be a very big deal and affects so much of our psyche.  Sexual harrassment can be played off so easily as "I'm just kidding" >smile< and people tend to just dismiss it.  Walking to your car at night isn't a big deal either, unless you're a woman.  Ears on high alert, eyes wide open and scanning all around you, behind you, looking over your shoulder every 2 seconds, checking your back seat...  But because so few men are actually predators this is somehow supposed to diminish the reality that we have to constantly be on the lookout for predators?  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MamaCaz said:

I've been following this conversation for a while but haven't chimed in yet.  I'm a woman, so this is my personal perspective.  No, it's not the majority of men who are criminals, but the majority response/view of many of the issues women have had to deal with from men over decades has been one of "it's not that big a deal.". Kind of like saying "it's just a white lie, get over it" attitude.  Maybe it doesn't seem like a big deal to you, but to us it can be a very big deal and affects so much of our psyche.  Sexual harrassment can be played off so easily as "I'm just kidding" >smile< and people tend to just dismiss it.  Walking to your car at night isn't a big deal either, unless you're a woman.  Ears on high alert, eyes wide open and scanning all around you, behind you, looking over your shoulder every 2 seconds, checking your back seat...  But because so few men are actually predators this is somehow supposed to diminish the reality that we have to constantly be on the lookout for predators?  

Thank you. Men have to fear for their reputations. Women get to fear for the violation of their bodies and their very lives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, florduh said:

An honest and thorough investigation into allegations goes a long way toward finding the truth. That seems to be impossible to achieve in certain cases involving the elite. Such high profile cases and how they're handled are what form public opinion on the matter.

In this case it's literally impossible because there are political agendas and motives at play. 

As for those who write Trumps behavior off, do you seriously think a lot of men aren't looking at him to set some kind of tone regarding this topic? Or even if they aren't, they see the degree to which women are disrespected and ridiculed, and that it's permissible at the highest levels of power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

In this case it's literally impossible because there are political agendas and motives at play. 

As for those who write Trumps behavior off, do you seriously think a lot of men aren't looking at him to set some kind of tone regarding this topic? Or even if they aren't, they see the degree to which women are disrespected and ridiculed, and that it's permissible at the highest levels of power. 

Our "leadership" promotes and endorses violence, mockery, alternative facts and lack of human decency. The message is clearly working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, freshstart said:

And then there are the grey areas. My daughter, while shopping alone at night recenty, was approached by 3 men. One of them came up behind her, and whispered so close in her ear that she could feel his breath, "you're beautiful." She felt outnumbered, intimidated, and angry.  When she stormed off, they acted offended, calling out to her "what's wrong, I can't tell you you're beautiful?!" She said to me, in what way would this ever be ok, why can't they see that?"

This was not a reportable incident, it is not the sort of thing that shows up in statistics. These men may not have been predators, but their behavior was, in context of the situation, predatorial. This stuff doesn't even show up on the radar.

This is exactly why I'm saying the stats on this are so skewed that they're completely unreliable. I have yet to make a female friend who hasn't been verbally assaulted/harassed at least once or multiple times. And I tend to think in my circles this was a conservative number, since I and all my friends belonged to a fundamentalist sect that greatly isolated ourselves from "worldly" places such as entertainment venues and bars etc where people lower their inhibitions. 

"Hey, what's the matter, can't smile at me? What a bitch." Ad nauseum. It's all too common. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, disillusioned said:

One in six American women has been sexually assaulted. Nowhere near this number of men have been falsely accused. So when rich, white men go on tv and try to convince me they this is a terrible, frightening time to be alive, I'm afraid I just don't buy it

 

This^^^  Well stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you haven't already seen it, there was a question posed on twitter asking women what they would do if men had a curfew.  It's not suggesting we impose a curfew, so don't get hung up about that.  It's a very insightful question that reveals so much about the restrictions that women around the world deal with in order to simply feel SAFE.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/491cd13b-fcfd-4e9b-b64d-a72cf8ad8c8b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly I'd just like to say that I love that this forum allows us to discuss complex issues without it devolving into abuse or flame wars.  I've learnt a lot on here and had my mind changed several times.  Debate without name calling can be very productive.

 

On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 12:42 PM, TruthSeeker0 said:

Interesting that you left out grope and molest from that statement.

 

I did intentionally leave out grope and molest, it is one thing which I've seen derail these conversations in the past.  Depending on exactly what is being discussed, consolidating all sexual harassment into a single category that includes violent rape all the way down to inappropriate speech can badly skew the numbers and give an incorrect idea of the subject.  This was famously seen in the study which claimed 1 in 4 women at university had been raped, but when the definition of rape was checked it turned out to be basically all inappropriate behaviour lumped together.  The pure rape rate was closer to 1 in 1000, but in order to sell the idea of a "rape culture" the statistics were inflated.  Perhaps the term would be better as "sexual harassment culture" rather than rape, as it gives the impression that violent rapes are occurring constantly which is not true. 

According to the FBI ~3% of American women will suffer a rape in their lifetime (that includes a guesstimate at unreported rapes), this should be looked at as both a positive (97% of women will not be raped) and a terrible thing (3% of women is millions of victims).  But when society is asked how to handle rape, you get an overwhelming response of long jail times, chemical castration and some even want the death penalty.  Western society hates rape and punishes it with great vigour.  We all wish the conviction rates were higher (that goes for all crimes and it is worth noting the conviction rate is similar to other violent crimes) but it is simply a lack of evidence in most cases which makes it impossible to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.  When it comes to molestation or inappropriate behaviour usually there is even less evidence. Unless the event was caught on camera there is often nothing to use in court.

I think in many cases it is not a tolerance of sexual harassment so much as a understanding that it is almost impossible to police.

 

On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 12:50 PM, TruthSeeker0 said:

Just be thankful that you'll never have to worry about reporting to your female friends where you're going for a date, who with. And about things like ensuring that nothing is put in your drink by your super nice date who is nevertheless a stranger to you. Or should you go for that nigh time jog, because there's been a string of sexual assaults at the local mall next door? Or feeling insecure about going alone for hikes in the woods. The list goes on. Just take all that for granted (and feel free to label all the females out there as paranoid).

Everyone agrees that there are horrible people in the world.  Scum who will take advantage of any situation without empathy for those they hurt.  Women are, in general, physically weaker and therefore an easier target for these evil people.  Everyone should always consider their own safety, and even if we manage to reduce offenses to a minimum, the  world will never be completely safe.  A small number of psychopaths means no matter what happens in the world we must all remain vigilant.  A tiny portion of evil people can have a massive impact on all our lives.

 

What we find is when these people are caught, whether they are violent, rapists or just thieves they know full well that their actions are illegal and that society is against them.  They either do not care, are mentally disturbed or desperate.  There is very little you can ever do to provide 100% security.

My concern is when people see these evil people and conflate those peoples activities as somehow a sign that any large portion of the population agrees with them.  What I'm saying is don't let the darkness of the world taint your view of the good people as well.  Abuse victims often struggle with this, how do you ever trust anyone ever again?  Paranoia can keep you safe, but it can also change your viewpoint to one of pure pessimism.  It is worth noting that violent crime of all kinds has decreased and rape rates have plunged:  http://mattbruenig.com/2013/03/23/the-dramatic-decline-of-rapes-and-sexual-assaults/

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

Firstly I'd just like to say that I love that this forum allows us to discuss complex issues without it devolving into abuse or flame wars.  I've learnt a lot on here and had my mind changed several times.  Debate without name calling can be very productive.

 

 

I did intentionally leave out grope and molest, it is one thing which I've seen derail these conversations in the past.  Depending on exactly what is being discussed, consolidating all sexual harassment into a single category that includes violent rape all the way down to inappropriate speech can badly skew the numbers and give an incorrect idea of the subject.  This was famously seen in the study which claimed 1 in 4 women at university had been raped, but when the definition of rape was checked it turned out to be basically all inappropriate behaviour lumped together.  The pure rape rate was closer to 1 in 1000, but in order to sell the idea of a "rape culture" the statistics were inflated.  Perhaps the term would be better as "sexual harassment culture" rather than rape, as it gives the impression that violent rapes are occurring constantly which is not true. 

According to the FBI ~3% of American women will suffer a rape in their lifetime (that includes a guesstimate at unreported rapes), this should be looked at as both a positive (97% of women will not be raped) and a terrible thing (3% of women is millions of victims).  But when society is asked how to handle rape, you get an overwhelming response of long jail times, chemical castration and some even want the death penalty.  Western society hates rape and punishes it with great vigour.  We all wish the conviction rates were higher (that goes for all crimes and it is worth noting the conviction rate is similar to other violent crimes) but it is simply a lack of evidence in most cases which makes it impossible to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.  When it comes to molestation or inappropriate behaviour usually there is even less evidence. Unless the event was caught on camera there is often nothing to use in court.

I think in many cases it is not a tolerance of sexual harassment so much as a understanding that it is almost impossible to police.

 

Everyone agrees that there are horrible people in the world.  Scum who will take advantage of any situation without empathy for those they hurt.  Women are, in general, physically weaker and therefore an easier target for these evil people.  Everyone should always consider their own safety, and even if we manage to reduce offenses to a minimum, the  world will never be completely safe.  A small number of psychopaths means no matter what happens in the world we must all remain vigilant.  A tiny portion of evil people can have a massive impact on all our lives.

 

What we find is when these people are caught, whether they are violent, rapists or just thieves they know full well that their actions are illegal and that society is against them.  They either do not care, are mentally disturbed or desperate.  There is very little you can ever do to provide 100% security.

My concern is when people see these evil people and conflate those peoples activities as somehow a sign that any large portion of the population agrees with them.  What I'm saying is don't let the darkness of the world taint your view of the good people as well.  Abuse victims often struggle with this, how do you ever trust anyone ever again?  Paranoia can keep you safe, but it can also change your viewpoint to one of pure pessimism.  It is worth noting that violent crime of all kinds has decreased and rape rates have plunged:  http://mattbruenig.com/2013/03/23/the-dramatic-decline-of-rapes-and-sexual-assaults/

 

 

I'm aware of the fact that violent crime, particularly sexual violence, is perpetrated to a great extent by psychopathic criminals, who are serial rapists, or killers. The crime committed by psychopaths accounts for a large portion of crime in general, if you compare it to that of the general population with prisons. It's why recognizing psychopathy is really necessary, and keeping these people in prison, is important. (I just read a book on the subject and frankly it's pretty challenging because you cannot rehabilitate or cure these people).

However, women aren't only victims because they are physically weaker. Women are victims because some men think that they'll get a free pass with verbal or physical sexual abuse or assault.

I also don't like separating these categories. The level of crime and seriousness can escalate quite easily, when someone gets away with verbal abuse or assault. First it's verbal, then its peeping tom, exposing yourself to women, groping, and if you've gotten away enough times, why not just try restrain the next person that comes along? No, I'm not saying that everyone escalates, but I'm saying that some do. To me, abuse is abuse. And I think something, some cultural shift needs to occur, for these "grey areas" to be recognized as abuse.

 

Edit: I've stated my reasons for staying away from stats. They don't particularly say anything of relevance to me on this subject, due to the reasons why abuse/assault aren't reported. Until people understand and take seriously why women don't report, and there is some sustained cultural shift that doesn't victimize women for reporting (how else can you characterize how Ford has been treated by some parties for reporting?), this isn't a serious part of the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Edit: I've stated my reasons for staying away from stats. They don't particularly say anything of relevance to me on this subject, due to the reasons why abuse/assault aren't reported. Until people understand and take seriously why women don't report, and there is some sustained cultural shift that doesn't victimize women for reporting (how else can you characterize how Ford has been treated by some parties for reporting?), this isn't a serious part of the discussion.

 

There are unfortunately multiple problems in Fords case. The first is she hasn't 'reported' it. She's gone to politicians. Those politicians have used it in an attempt for political gain which is not fair to Ford. However, had she even gone to police they would be in the situation where a crime has been reported, but there is no way to prosecute. This is basically he said, she said, and based on what we have seen, if police did try and build a case it probably wouldn't get past the DA for lack of supporting evidence.

 

This is a problem for getting justice for victims who have no corroborating evidence or witnesses. However we can't just then simply accept the word of every person who accuses another of assault, nor should we simply accept a denial of the same.

 

In Ford vs Kavanaugh I don't know who to believe. I don't think there is enough evidence to hold him guilty of what Ford says, but I think there is enough doubt about the man to vote against him being a Supreme court judge.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

I also don't like separating these categories. The level of crime and seriousness can escalate quite easily, when someone gets away with verbal abuse or assault. First it's verbal, then its peeping tom, exposing yourself to women, groping, and if you've gotten away enough times, why not just try restrain the next person that comes along? No, I'm not saying that everyone escalates, but I'm saying that some do. To me, abuse is abuse.

I only separate to highlight there is a difference between violent forced rape, and a guy giving an inappropriate comment.  One can scar you for life or even take your life, while the other will only effect you on an emotional level.  Of course this is not to say the behaviour is acceptable, only that we should not dilute the horror of rape with other crimes (not saying that you do, only that some feminists do).  We should not devalue the word rape by mis-using it at any time.  I've seen some feminists say things like "he raped me with his eyes" or "the unsafe feeling was as if I'd been raped", that kind of language muddies waters that really need clarity.

I'm also not sure about this idea of sexual harassment escalating to rape.  You would still have to fit into the psychopathic category to make the jump in logic that having gotten away with grabbing a bum that surely rape will be fine.  It takes a huge increase in violence, in time and in planning, its not a straight forward step to make.   

 

I did see a cut from Ben Sharpio about rape culture that I thought he said it quite well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEKJThPdZNM  (its a 3min video, so nice and short and to the point). 

 

I think we agree on most points.  We would all love victims to come forward about abuse and especially rape, and the sooner they can do that they higher the success rate of conviction becomes.  I would also be in favour of chemical castration for serial rapists, and if put to a vote I believe such a law change would have massive support.

 

2 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

how else can you characterize how Ford has been treated by some parties for reporting?

I don't believe Ford's testimony is an indication of the experience most people would have, as the situation is both politically charged and a media circus.

 

2 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

 I think something, some cultural shift needs to occur, for these "grey areas" to be recognized as abuse.

The problem with the grey areas, at the lowest form of abuse, the purely verbal, is that it also crosses into the freedom of speech question.  If a guy calls out "you look pretty!" I would expect most women would ignore, some vain ones might smile and some feminists would be enraged.  The idea of offensive language is a really tricky subject, from people being labelled as fascists/Nazis/racists to speakers being de-platformed by venues.  I am a freedom of speech absolutist, in that as long as you aren't committing a crime (perjury, conspiracy, defamation etc) then you should be allowed to say whatever you want.  Saying hateful things to people is not socially acceptable, but it shouldn't be criminalised.

Then you have the grey area of intimidation, exactly how threatening does someone have to be for it to be a crime?  How do you draw that line?  If it is the low level of just what makes anyone feel uncomfortable, then you could hardly have a conversation.  There are overly prickly types who would be uncomfortable with a guy glancing their way.  This is one area where I just do not know how to choose where to draw that line.  Very easy to go too far and very easy to allow threatening behaviour as long as no physical contact occurs. 

Legally they use vague terms like "It may be inferred from conduct, words, or circumstances reasonably calculated to produce fear." but what is reasonable to one person may not be to another.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

There are unfortunately multiple problems in Fords case. The first is she hasn't 'reported' it. She's gone to politicians. Those politicians have used it in an attempt for political gain which is not fair to Ford. However, had she even gone to police they would be in the situation where a crime has been reported, but there is no way to prosecute. This is basically he said, she said, and based on what we have seen, if police did try and build a case it probably wouldn't get past the DA for lack of supporting evidence.

 

This is a problem for getting justice for victims who have no corroborating evidence or witnesses. However we can't just then simply accept the word of every person who accuses another of assault, nor should we simply accept a denial of the same.

 

In Ford vs Kavanaugh I don't know who to believe. I don't think there is enough evidence to hold him guilty of what Ford says, but I think there is enough doubt about the man to vote against him being a Supreme court judge.

 

I wasn't saying there weren't problems with her case. I was pointing out that the US President is currently ridiculing a woman who came forth with an alleged assault.  Whether what she's saying is true or not is beside the point. Want to lay the groundwork for ridicule and disrespect towards women? Just get someone in the top office to act like this. I'm not actually discussing this case. I'm talking about the wider context and atmosphere. Someone want to argue that what has happened politically in the United States has further convinced women that they should come forward, that they'll be taken seriously, and wont just be laughed at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

I only separate to highlight there is a difference between violent forced rape, and a guy giving an inappropriate comment.  One can scar you for life or even take your life, while the other will only effect you on an emotional level.  Of course this is not to say the behaviour is acceptable, only that we should not dilute the horror of rape with other crimes (not saying that you do, only that some feminists do).  We should not devalue the word rape by mis-using it at any time.  I've seen some feminists say things like "he raped me with his eyes" or "the unsafe feeling was as if I'd been raped", that kind of language muddies waters that really need clarity.

I'm also not sure about this idea of sexual harassment escalating to rape.  You would still have to fit into the psychopathic category to make the jump in logic that having gotten away with grabbing a bum that surely rape will be fine.  It takes a huge increase in violence, in time and in planning, its not a straight forward step to make.   

No, you don't have to be psychopathic to escalate. Come on, I've seen enough interviews with police officers who investigate this kind of crime everyday. There are patterns, and escalation is a thing. I'll take their word over our speculation here anyday, they're the professional investigators in this business.

 

And I'm starting to understand the thinking here, because I know how very logical-minded some of you here are. Dont know how if this is the case with you Wertbag, but dismissing things as "only effect you on an emotional level" is one big mistake, when it comes to verbal harrassment, abuse, groping, etc. The implication is that women should be unscarred/write off this "grey area" abuse. Really? Want to know what decades of abuse does to victims, particularly in the workplace, as a women, when they aren't taken seriously? Some of them end up suiciding.

There's clearly a tremendous disconnect on this issue between men and women, and it likely relates to the fact that they operate in some different ways on an emotional plane, to begin with. Dismissing the emotional consequences of harassment and abuse is I think at the root of this problem.

30 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

 

The problem with the grey areas, at the lowest form of abuse, the purely verbal, is that it also crosses into the freedom of speech question.  If a guy calls out "you look pretty!" I would expect most women would ignore, some vain ones might smile and some feminists would be enraged.  The idea of offensive language is a really tricky subject, from people being labelled as fascists/Nazis/racists to speakers being de-platformed by venues.  I am a freedom of speech absolutist, in that as long as you aren't committing a crime (perjury, conspiracy, defamation etc) then you should be allowed to say whatever you want.  Saying hateful things to people is not socially acceptable, but it shouldn't be criminalised.

 

 

 

Not going to go near this one, because I'm likely to start seeing red, and I should be going to sleep. Yes, I've argued the freedom of speech/tolerance thing before, so I'm not going to revisit it. Basically in a nutshell here's my problem with it, which relates to the above: the right of someone to use offensive language is deemed more important than taking into consideration the very negative consequences on other people and parties. Yes, my point was that after enough of the verbal abuse, people reach their limit. You're basically saying here that women should shut up and just take verbal abuse, because men's freedom of speech is more important. Want to know something? Emotional abuse is just as harmful as physical abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

 dismissing things as "only effect you on an emotional level" is one big mistake, when it comes to verbal harrassment, abuse, groping, etc. The implication is that women should be unscarred/write off this "grey area" abuse. Really? Want to know what decades of abuse does to victims, particularly in the workplace, as a women, when they aren't taken seriously? Some of them end up suiciding.

I'm not dismissing them, in fact my very next sentence was "this is not to say the behaviour is acceptable, only that we should not dilute the horror of rape with other crimes".  What I'm saying is there is scales of abuse, with a violent rape being one of the most horrific crimes that can be committed.  Rape being a 10/10 on the evil scale doesn't mean harrassment is automatically a zero.

However you did jump from my example which was a mild "inappropriate comment" to a horrendous "decades of abuse".  These things are at completely different scales, and again you will get no arguement that ongoing regular abuse is a terrible thing (and illegal).  

We need clarity as to what is being meant by "harrassment" for exactly this reason.  The term is being used to include everything from an unwanted compliment, to someone looking in your direction, to inappropriate touching, to violent sexual assault.  These things are different levels and should rightly be punished in accordance with that level.

 

4 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Basically in a nutshell here's my problem with it, which relates to the above: the right of someone to use offensive language is deemed more important than taking into consideration the very negative consequences on other people and parties. Yes, my point was that after enough of the verbal abuse, people reach their limit. You're basically saying here that women should shut up and just take verbal abuse, because men's freedom of speech is more important. Want to know something? Emotional abuse is just as harmful as physical abuse.

 

I understand you don't want to go indepth into free speech which is perfectly understandable, its a huge complex question in its own right.  However you are wrong with your conclusion "You're basically saying here that women should shut up and just take verbal abuse".  Why shut up?  You have freedom of speech as well.  If its fear, threats and intimidation then those things are illegal and you should call the police who will take those reports very seriously.  Speak up and educate stupid guys as to why their actions are not acceptable.  It is only through discussions such as these in public forums, through education and letting your voice be heard that you achieve the culture shift we want to see.  

And yes I want to see a culture shift too on many different subjects, even though we may disagree on the scale of the problem, that doesn't mean I don't think it is a problem at all and that it couldn't be better than it is.

 

My only questions around free spe

ech, since you disagree with it, would be how do you define offensive language and how would you like to see people who break this rule punished?  I base my free speech absolutism on my belief that there is no clear and just way to label or punish such things.  I would absolutely change my view if clear rules could be described.

 

Regarding your statement "Emotional abuse is just as harmful as physical abuse", could you clarify what you mean?  Are you thinking of the extremes of both types of abuse?

 

4 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Not going to go near this one, because I'm likely to start seeing red

I really hope you don't get angry. I enjoy these discussions and think its been polite and interesting.  I do appreciate the time you've taken to reply and I do think there is great value in these discussions, even if it is only to help understand anothers point of view.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Basically in a nutshell here's my problem with it, which relates to the above: the right of someone to use offensive language is deemed more important than taking into consideration the very negative consequences on other people and parties.

...Want to know something? Emotional abuse is just as harmful as physical abuse.

 

Without derailing this topic too far, I think something to be considered here, in light with what Wertbag was saying about defining offensive speech, is who does the defining? (A case of be careful what you wish for?)

 

For example what if I am deeply offended by some of what is said here? Say the quote above. I'm not, but lets assume I took genuine offense, and it emotionally affected me. Well under your scenario wouldn't we be advocating not tolerating your speech that I've now deemed offensive? This is something we need to think carefully about. Should we advocate defining offensive speech based on those who take offense?

 

More in line with the topic, what about giving a woman a compliment, perhaps asking her out. Now one could take great offense and decide she's being harassed despite the fact no harm was intended, while another may be flattered and even delighted at being asked out. How do you police something like that? How do you rule on intention? 

 

At the moment we (In NZ) already have anti harassment laws. If you keep talking to someone who has told you to go away the police can be called and you'll be given a warning. Take it further and more consequences will come.

 

But for fear of irreversibly harming wrongfully convicted innocent person I would advocate much harsher penalties for those convicted of sexual crimes if it would reduce rates of offending.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Wertbag said:

 The term is being used to include everything from an unwanted compliment, to someone looking in your direction, to inappropriate touching, to violent sexual assault.  These things are different levels and should rightly be punished in accordance with that level.

I have yet to see media articles that describe women complaining of abuse because men were looking in their direction. And I mean looking, not leering - there's a difference. And if there were examples of this I'd be extremely skeptical of them, because using these kinds of examples one way or the other serves the purpose/bias/motives of certain parties.  Most reasonable people will note that when claims are made that women are crying harassment because men have eyes in their head, it's usually from the parties that are the first to shout "feminists think we should kill all men!"

Now, it's an entirely different story if the men are trying to police the women, simply because they have eyes in their head. Take the male teacher who decided to reprimand and get a student involved with the school administration because she had worn leggings with a long shirt and was "distracting" him as she walked up the stairs. What I tell these kinds of men is: girls and women aren't responsible for your lack of self control, and you shouldn't be in this kind of environment if you have so little of it. I think we can all agree that foolishness isn't a case of gender and exists in both sexes, when it comes to being completely unreasonable.

14 hours ago, Wertbag said:

 

 

I understand you don't want to go indepth into free speech which is perfectly understandable, its a huge complex question in its own right.  However you are wrong with your conclusion "You're basically saying here that women should shut up and just take verbal abuse".  Why shut up?  You have freedom of speech as well.  If its fear, threats and intimidation then those things are illegal and you should call the police who will take those reports very seriously.  Speak up and educate stupid guys as to why their actions are not acceptable.  It is only through discussions such as these in public forums, through education and letting your voice be heard that you achieve the culture shift we want to see.  

And yes I want to see a culture shift too on many different subjects, even though we may disagree on the scale of the problem, that doesn't mean I don't think it is a problem at all and that it couldn't be better than it is.

One of the prime reasons why men disagree with the extent of the problem is because they aren't the targets. Which is why I get pissed off when men get all "look at the stats" yada yada yada. You actually don't have a right and aren't entitled to speak for what women experience, because you aren't women. Talk stats all you want, but it's high time men stopped saying "this isn't as big of a deal as you guys make it out to be."

14 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Regarding your statement "Emotional abuse is just as harmful as physical abuse", could you clarify what you mean?  Are you thinking of the extremes of both types of abuse?

What do you mean by extremes?

It's much easier to write off emotional abuse if it's a stranger dishing it out and you can escape the situation. If it's a workplace, a home, someone you know/someone in your circles, and particularly, someone who holds any degree of power or influence over you, it's an entirely different story.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

For example what if I am deeply offended by some of what is said here? Say the quote above. I'm not, but lets assume I took genuine offense, and it emotionally affected me. Well under your scenario wouldn't we be advocating not tolerating your speech that I've now deemed offensive? This is something we need to think carefully about. Should we advocate defining offensive speech based on those who take offense?

We're just both approaching this topic differently, I thought maybe you'd have recognized this because it isn't the first conversation by far.

I'm actually not talking or focusing on taking offense. When I discuss freedom of speech, I'm primarily concerned with the harmful effect or consequences of offensive speech on other people or parties.  (and yes I recognize people will determine what's offensive in different ways). Whereas you on the other hand are concerned with the right of that party to verbalize said offensive speech or words, and where we draw the limits of this.

One thing that really puzzles we nowadays, is that free speech is taken and adopted as a cover for hate speech and outright racism, homophobia etc, by people who actually have an agenda, and can use this freedom of speech, to protect themselves as they go about doing their best to recruit and influence others (a prime objective if they're going to have any success at all) and build the kind of world they idealize. So many people love to think we live in a world where the nastiness of human nature has somehow disappeared or evolved, and that history is history, can be relegated to the dustbin, and holds no lessons for us.

Is it more important, more relevant, that the German citizenry retained their rights to freedom of speech in spewing all that vile hate in the 1930s? (And why do people immediately claim that pointing to 1930s Germany is somehow unfair?) Why don't we blame the Jews for just not yelling back at them, and trying to educate them, and influence them? There's a fine line we walk. When we vote in certain views that have gained their influence partially through all this freedom of speech (and influence), there can be consequences, serious ones. Whose voice wins? Theirs that has been the loudest, and most influential.

Those who hold power typically control the airwaves and radios with their opinions, and all this grand freedom of speech. They're thus able to influence opinions regarding those they consider to be inferior, or those they want to control (typically those who are powerless or disadvantaged).

Maybe now you'll understand to a tiny extent why I stand in favour of hate speech legislation?

 

13 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

More in line with the topic, what about giving a woman a compliment, perhaps asking her out. Now one could take great offense and decide she's being harassed despite the fact no harm was intended, while another may be flattered and even delighted at being asked out. How do you police something like that? How do you rule on intention? 

 

At the moment we (In NZ) already have anti harassment laws. If you keep talking to someone who has told you to go away the police can be called and you'll be given a warning. Take it further and more consequences will come.

That's pretty reasonable, imo. Leave them alone and if you can't, then live with the consequences. Most of us know how to use our common sense, and can determine that the human species will die out if there isn't even a way for a man to speak to a woman or a woman to a man, lol. And being asked on a date is not what any reasonable women is talking about when she's discussing harassment or abuse.

 

I would stand with harsher penalties. I can't really even claim that forcing offenders to get some education on the subject would lead to any improvement, because in a great deal of cases involving violent sexual crime, the offenders can be psychopaths, who have extremely high recidivism rates, or then they are very complicated cases where there is no clear cut "treatment". Where we do stand a chance of changing the cultural norm is with intervening with those who engage in less serious harassment and abuse. However, don't expect us women to try educate our abusers or harassers, as the best bet for us is to gain as much distance as we can get from them. And this is why men are part of this conversation and should be doing more amongst themselves if they actually want some change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Is it more important, more relevant, that the German citizenry retained their rights to freedom of speech in spewing all that vile hate in the 1930s? (And why do people immediately claim that pointing to 1930s Germany is somehow unfair?)

 

You realize it was the state controlling speech in Germany right? The same thing you are advocating which is give the state power to control speech.

 

I'm all for curbing hateful speech but who's deciding this? Until someone can identify a decent system that only curbs objectively hateful speech, and not criticism, then giving too much power to the state to ban what you don't like or find offensive is dangerous. That's exactly how religions maintain control - curb criticism by saying anything detrimental said about the religion is to be punished.

 

However we gone clean off topic here and we clearly don't see eye to eye on speech, even though we agree that it would be desirable to eliminate hate speech if possible.

 

Back to the harassment issue, how would you see anti speech laws working? Do you make it illegal to compliment a woman by telling her she looks beautiful? You run into a raft of problems. One you can say that and it just be a genuine compliment certainly not deserving of punishment, and two you could say it in a manner that is totally creepy. How to distinguish? Also some, maybe a lot of women like to have compliments thrown their way - make it illegal and you are depriving them too. This goes for any speech that anyone wants banned. There are many complex factors, and many solutions lead straight to the road to no speech unless state sanctioned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

You realize it was the state controlling speech in Germany right? The same thing you are advocating which is give the state power to control speech.

That relates exactly to my point, that those with power will control the message.

This is a tough area, because the intent in implementing this legislation is crucial. If the protection of core rights that we recognize today in most western societies (ie those for example in the canadian charter of rights) is the intent of legislation, I would argue the intent is justified. They key point is, what is the intent of the legislation. Is the intent of the legislation to prevent the dissemination of clearly hateful information that seeks to destroy the rights of some group of people? Or is the intent of the legislation to privilege the rights of some people and limit those of others?

Ultimately, the implementation of such legislation only works in a system where there are checks and balances on a democratic government. And where there is clear legislation determining when speech becomes harassment or assault etc.

I actually prefer what New Zealand has adopted in regards to harassment or assault. If someone wants to get in your face in a public space and tell you your rights don't matter, you're a piece of scum and you're going to hell etc, and they continue to verbally assault you and don't shut up after you've told them to walk, then they can live with the consequences as outlined in the legislation.

 

4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I'm all for curbing hateful speech but who's deciding this? Until someone can identify a decent system that only curbs objectively hateful speech, and not criticism, then giving too much power to the state to ban what you don't like or find offensive is dangerous. That's exactly how religions maintain control - curb criticism by saying anything detrimental said about the religion is to be punished.

 

However we gone clean off topic here and we clearly don't see eye to eye on speech, even though we agree that it would be desirable to eliminate hate speech if possible.

 

Back to the harassment issue, how would you see anti speech laws working? Do you make it illegal to compliment a woman by telling her she looks beautiful? You run into a raft of problems. One you can say that and it just be a genuine compliment certainly not deserving of punishment, and two you could say it in a manner that is totally creepy. How to distinguish? Also some, maybe a lot of women like to have compliments thrown their way - make it illegal and you are depriving them too. This goes for any speech that anyone wants banned. There are many complex factors, and many solutions lead straight to the road to no speech unless state sanctioned. 

It's complicated, and for that reason I think legislation in regards to what constitutes harassment or assault makes more sense. I'd reiterate what i said above about hate speech legislation and the protection of rights. Yes, freedom of speech is a right, but I think hate speech legislation, with the intent of protecting rights, also serves this purpose and limits the abuse of freedom of speech, to pursue an agenda that seeks to undermine the rights of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The saddest part about this whole ordeal is that it has revealed just how many people don't understand the point of the presumption of evidence. People seem to think it's some kind of dichotomy, where we are forced to assume that either all accusers are liars or all the accused are guilty before any trial takes place. Because the neutral stance of "We don't know until evidence is examined." apparently doesn't exist. Because, you know, it's not like investigation before conclusion is the basis of all post-enlightenment era scientific inquiry or anything oh wait it fucking is.

 

And then the media is fully complacent in this idiocracy. With supposedly respectable journal outlets such as Washington Post publishing articles that can be summarized as "Zomg!!11oneone!!! Kavanaugh refused to give a straight answer to a loaded gatcha question!!! He guilty!!!oneone111!!" and then some right wing forums posting nonsense such as "ZOMG DR FORD WAS HYPNOTIZED!!!!!". It's like the entire collective of humanity has lost all sense of reason.

 

The saddest part is, we fucking know better. When it comes to legit any other crime, such as burglary or whatever, people are fully capable of understanding that we don't raise our pitchforks until we know who stole the cookie from the cookie jar. It's just with sex-related crimes in the brink of self-destructive gender identity politics ( I refuse to call it feminism. Feminism is a dead movement that no longer exists. ) we seem to think that it's either #BelieveAllWomen or #AllWomenAreLying.

 

What the hell happened to #BelieveEvidence?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jedah said:

What the hell happened to #BelieveEvidence?

In this case, politics under the Trump reign happened. They weren't interested in any kind of investigation or evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of evidence - this  libertarian blog article was most interesting. I specifically mention libertarian because sadly if it was from any remotely left wing source then "#Fakenews" would probably be the response.

 

I've mentioned before I'm on the fence with BK vs Ford. After  reading this blog, assuming everything could be fact checked I'd be much more on Fords side.

 

https://www.fff.org/2018/10/09/christine-fords-corroborating-evidence/

 

@Jedah You spoke of evidence. What are your thoughts after reading the blog? (Also considering the only other 'witness' was BK's best friend so not exactly an unbiased witness.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jedah said:

The saddest part about this whole ordeal is that it has revealed just how many people don't understand the point of the presumption of evidence.

 

Did you mean presumption of innocence? 

 

Another observation I had: a Supreme Court hearing is not a trial, yet people were acting as if this one was. So what is a Senate "hearing" anyway? The Senators are supposed to simply ask the nominee some questions and then vote based on those answers. If they don't like the answers, they vote no for confirmation. It isn't complicated. 

 

Ford made an accusation that was utterly unprovable even within a trial setting

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Blood said:

Ford made an accusation that was utterly unprovable even within a trial setting

 

This is true. Even with corroborating evidence there still wasn't enough to convict BK beyond reasonable doubt. This leads me to a societal issue I've been thinking about, and one for which I have no solution. How many people do face situations like Fords? Lets assume for arguments sake that she is telling the truth. We are 'God' and we know BK attempted to rape her. No witnesses that will stand for her, not enough evidence to probably even bring a trial. To bring a trial you must have enough evidence that any reasonable person should be able to declare a person guilty or not guilty. So our problem is that we have a crime, but no way to prove it, and no way to get justice for the victim. And I find myself thinking how often does this happen? How many people don't report rape simply because they know how the system works and that they have no evidence with which to bring a case. A flaw in our justice system perhaps? Doe's this justify public courts, when all you can do, assuming again it actually happened, is essentially do your own trial by public opinion. I sympathise with those caught in such a situation, but I'm not sure I can bring myself to say, yes that's ok in that case, for fear of the wider damage allowing false accusations to get a life of its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

This is true. Even with corroborating evidence there still wasn't enough to convict BK beyond reasonable doubt. This leads me to a societal issue I've been thinking about, and one for which I have no solution. How many people do face situations like Fords? Lets assume for arguments sake that she is telling the truth. We are 'God' and we know BK attempted to rape her. No witnesses that will stand for her, not enough evidence to probably even bring a trial. To bring a trial you must have enough evidence that any reasonable person should be able to declare a person guilty or not guilty. So our problem is that we have a crime, but no way to prove it, and no way to get justice for the victim. And I find myself thinking how often does this happen? How many people don't report rape simply because they know how the system works and that they have no evidence with which to bring a case. A flaw in our justice system perhaps? Doe's this justify public courts, when all you can do, assuming again it actually happened, is essentially do your own trial by public opinion. I sympathise with those caught in such a situation, but I'm not sure I can bring myself to say, yes that's ok in that case, for fear of the wider damage allowing false accusations to get a life of its own.

This is the problem we face today, with most rape and sexual assault cases. And this is why most victims suffer in silence, and most do not get justice. In some countries, this is also a cultural issue, in that if the woman brings it up, shame and guilt are heaped on her and she's called a whore etc, and in some cases her own family may abandon her as a result. Cultural and societal factors also enable rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.