Protecting victims of false rape allegations

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
Except for the little tiny detail about not having been born yet.

Then how is your opinion relevent to what conservatives thought thirty or twenty years ago?

I bet this could apply to many people on these boards. Moreover, I'd bet the VAST MAJORITY of the conservatives on these boards were and are in favor of rape being a crime.

This is because in the invtervening thirty years, conservatives have moderated their views. Just like in the 1950s, most conservatives were opposed to civil rights, but today would not argue that Black people shouldn't have the right to vote or use public facilities, or do you think those Southern Democrats were liberals?

Again, you lack historical perpective. You look at what conservatives say today, and assume that it what they have always said. That is one things that has always been true of conservatives, they refuse to acknowldge that they've changed.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by monkspider
I have to agree Che, not to boil your blood or anything, but supporting equality for women /= being a feminist. Why not just support equality for all with socialism? Feminism is superfluous and potentially bad.

There are a few slogans from the 70s and 80s that might be appriopriate here.

feminism: the radical notion that women are human beings

feminism: the radical idea that women are not doormats.

The fundimental position of feminism is that women are the equal of men. This has been one of their greatest successes. Outside of fundimentalist religions, no one in the U.S. believes that women are inferior anymore.

It's all fine and well to say that and believe that's the way things should be. Still, women by and large still tend to get the short end of the stick. There are a number of reasons for this, and there are also counter trends in education.

While socialism does, theoretically, support the equality of all, the reality is we have fallen short of the mark, within our parties, in those countries where socialists of whatever stripe have come to power, and among our individual socialists. For these reasons, many feminists do not trust socialists.

Just sit on the back of the bus and let socialism take care of you little lady. No, it doesn't work like that. You only win people over by taking their concerns seriously, not by dismissing them. Ideas aren't everything. History, the real lived lives of people, is what is paramount. If the real lived lives of women is that socialists have acted like pigs in the past, telling them feminism is harmful is going to win you no friends except among conservatives.

If your ideas don't match or at least explain, history, your ideas are wrong. This is why both the younger conservatives and younger socialists alike in this thread have been claiming that feminism is something different than it really is and that certain ideas aren't feminism. Because they have no historical memory.

Finally, you and yavoon can call yourselfs socialists all you want, but if you do not make a serious attempt to understand feminism, you will be doing socialism no favors.

[Velociryx]

Hmmm....I must be an anomoly, because I support equality for women and certainly do not consider myself a "feminist" (any more than I would consider myself a "masculinist")

-=Vel=-

[Pekka]

Well I think this should be a case of throwing the woman in jail. Hard punishment, it's a hard crime. If it goes through the innocent man has to go to jail, spend there what ever he has to, and come back with a criminal record of a rapist, his future is pretty messed up too.
She does not only steal few years of his life, she steals the future as well.

Women who are raped are emotionally scarred forever, so rape is a serious thing. But so are these guys too, forever scarred for being labeled as a rapist for the rest of their lives when they didn't do it. Where is this person going to find work? No, he's then ex-inmate and a rapist. People don't forget these things. If he's from small society.. he has to move.

So giving this false accusation is not only bad, it's evil and should be dealt with severe punishment. Also the mans name must be cleared with as big of media etc attention as the case got. And you can't clear a mans name from that, you're still labeled and there are some buttholes thinking you're a rapist.

So, in case the accuser gets caught in lying and doing this crime, throw that ass in jail. If woman accuses a man, and man is not convicted for other reasons, then woman should not be punished because she wasn't necessarily lying. But if she gets caught from setting the whole thing up... no mercy.

[Solly]

Chegitz, as previously stated, the feminist argument is superfluous. Just say you support equality for all.

Right, what else do you need?

[Kuciwalker]

Then how is your opinion relevent to what conservatives thought thirty or twenty years ago?

It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that you are blatantly slandering me and 95% of the people on these boards (anyone who doesn't call themself a feminist). You group a diverse group of people into a bunch of faceless "evil people". I find it extremely offensive to be accused of what you are saying (anti-women, etc.).

This is because in the invtervening thirty years, conservatives have moderated their views. Just like in the 1950s, most conservatives were opposed to civil rights, but today would not argue that Black people shouldn't have the right to vote or use public facilities, or do you think those Southern Democrats were liberals?

How do you know that most conservatives were opposed to civil rights? You are generalizing again. You are most likely blaming an entire group on the actions of a few radicals.

Now, re: closed trials:

Come to think of it, don't defendents already have this right? Isn't the right to an open trial that of the defendent? So the defendent can choose not to exercise that right, correct? I have no idea if this is true, could someone who knows more about that explain?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Hmmm....I must be an anomoly, because I support equality for women and certainly do not consider myself a "feminist" (any more than I would consider myself a "masculinist")

-=Vel=-

Well, I guess you've learned something new about yourself!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker

Then how is your opinion relevent to what conservatives thought thirty or twenty years ago?

you are blatantly slandering me and 95% of the people on these boards (anyone who doesn't call themself a feminist).

Nope, I have not. The vast majority of conservatives opposed, and continue to oppose feminism (even if they have been won over to the core idea). The reason why the ERA didn't pass was because of the opposition of who? That's right, conservatives. What you are trying to do is say that conservativism in 2003 = conservatism in 1976. It ain't the same thing.

Wanna know something else, in 1789, conservatives believed that the US should be a monarchy and that no one should have the right to vote. If conservatives had had their way, we'd have an inherited head of state . . . . okay, so you guys won that one.

Is this making any sense to you? Nixon argued for universal health care and a guaranteed minimum standard of living for all Americans. Would any Republican argue that today? Can you get it through your skull that conservatism has changed, but that if conservatives had had their way, nothing would have changed! That's why it's called conservatism. It's ideologically opposed to change.

As for saying those who don't call themselves feminists are opposed to equal rights for women . . . well, that's your call. Those who support equal rights are feminists. If you support equal rights, you support feminism, whether you want to or not, whether you call yourself a feminist or not. Because that's what feminism is about: equal rights for women.

This is because in the invtervening thirty years, conservatives have moderated their views. Just like in the 1950s, most conservatives were opposed to civil rights, but today would not argue that Black people shouldn't have the right to vote or use public facilities, or do you think those Southern Democrats were liberals?

How do you know that most conservatives were opposed to civil rights? You are generalizing again. You are most likely blaming an entire group on the actions of a few radicals.

It's a matter of historical record. You may want to wish it didn't happen, but it did. As anyone who lived through that period can tell you.

[Kuciwalker]

Even if most conservatives believed that, does that mean they're wrong now? You're argument falls under ad hominem.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
You're argument falls under ad hominem.

That is true, and I probably would have gone back and removed it because it didn't prove anything. Just because conservatives were wrong in the past doesn't mean they were wrong today. I even sat asking myself what point that statement had served.

But then you had to go and start a fight about how conservatives would never . . . which was blatent historical revisionism (another thing which hasn't changed about conservatives).

[Kuciwalker]

You would have gone back and removed it... but then you decided to keep arguing it instead. Hmmm.

I didn't say "conservatives would never....", I said the actions were most likely those of radicals.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
You would have gone back and removed it... but then you decided to keep arguing it instead. Hmmm.

I didn't say "conservatives would never....", I said the actions were most likely those of radicals.

No, I didn't keep arguing it. We were arguing something different. What I wrote was that it wasn't relevent.
It was wrong for the argument. It wasn't factually incorrect, however.

Once you made an issue of it and tried to act as if it wasn't true, it became an issue. At that point if I had gone back and removed it, it would have been as if I was conceding your point, which I don't, because I'm right.

By the way, there's no such thing as a radical conservative. It's an oxymoron. Radicals are, by definition, leftists. What you mean is militant or extremist. Typically such people are refered to as reactionaries.

So, while people like Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum might have opposed the ERA, they make up such a tiny amount of the conservative movement that they couldn't be responsible for its defeat alone. It was always the right that opposed feminism politically.

It was always the right that opposed the changing views of the victims and survivors of rape and what constituted rape. If conservatives had won the debate and the political fights, husbands would still be able to rape their wives with impunity, women who went back to the guys room would have no legal defense, and prostitutes would still be fair game.

[chequita guevara]

Let's try this another way. Who were the great conservative leaders opposing Jim Crow? Who were the great conservative leaders who said women had a right to a job with equal pay? Who were the great conservative leaders who said that women who claimed to be raped were treated abominably by society? Who were the great conservative leaders who said that date rape was wrong?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by skywalker
Except for the little tiny detail about not having been born yet.

Then how is your opinion relevent to what conservatives thought thirty or twenty years ago?

I bet this could apply to many people on these boards. Moreover, I'd bet the VAST MAJORITY of the conservatives on these boards were and are in favor of rape being a crime.

This is because in the invtervening thirty years, conservatives have moderated their views. Just like in the 1950s, most conservatives were opposed to civil rights, but today would not argue that Black people shouldn't have the right to vote or use public facilities, or do you think those Southern Democrats were liberals?

Again, you lack historical perpective. You look at what conservatives say today, and assume that it what they have always said. That is one things that has always been true of conservatives, they refuse to acknowldge that they've changed.

wow. umm ppl call themselves conservative because of the values of the party TODAY. its utterly amazing that u think the conservative party is like "man I wish we could still sell blacks as slaves, but those damn liberals are too strong now." I mean holy crap.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by yavoon
wow. umm ppl call themselves conservative because of the values of the party TODAY. its utterly amazing that u think the conservative party is like "man I wish we could still sell blacks as slaves, but those damn liberals are too strong now." I mean holy crap.

I'm just flabbergasted that you could read those two paragraphs you quoted and then attribute the exact opposite meaning to them.