Protecting victims of false rape allegations

[Velociryx]

Yep....anybody who takes the focus away from women for just the briefest flickering second and dares to ask the question: "What about men who get falsely accused" MUST be a woman hater.

Obviously.



-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, people on the OT have actually met her. They wonder why she puts up with me.

Whatever. She is still a) a zero-post settler and b) a raving moron.

[mrmitchell]

Just for duplication so everyone sees it:

If rape is the number one unreported crime, then how do they know?

(It's relevant to both threads I think )

[Kuciwalker]

It is, and I love it.

[Velociryx]

Mr. Mitchell....obviously you are a raving woman hater for asking such an insensitive question.

I'll bet you even have the audacity to believe that no woman has ever lied about it for personal gain!

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

To Che,

Who were the great conservative leaders who said that women who claimed to be raped were treated abominably by society?


Counter-Question: Who were the great liberal leaders who thought for just a moment about how abominably men who are falsely accused of rape are treated by society?

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.

Utterly incorrect. I support equal rights, period. That makes me a supporter of equal rights. Nothing more. You can keep your feminazi label.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

To Bunny,

First, none of you fools are as famous as Kobe Bryant and will probably not appear in the international press if accused of any crime let alone rape. So why do you care so much about this issue?

The first point is utterly irrelevant to the discussion, and since you don’t really know any of us, you are hardly in a position to say for certain, but perhaps I’ll see you on opening night when the movie adapted from one of my books comes out. As to the second point, it matters to us because it can happen to any male, any time. And unlike other crimes, where the accused is innocent until proven guilty, as soon as the word “rape” spreads through the media, the man is presumed guilty, whether he is or not. THAT is why it matters.

You suggest that violence should fall upon a "false" accuser as if this is the answer to the earth's ills.

Can’t speak for the others here, but my suggestion was simply that if a man is falsely accused of it, then his accuser should face the same punishment he would have gotten had it been true. Nothing more, nothing less. (that’s “equal” by the way, for all you equal rights mavens out there)

Violence and oppression is the reason why rape exists in the first place.

Incorrect. Rape and other violent crimes are a symptom of the disease. Oppression takes many forms, and not all of them violent. Study some history. You’ll see what I mean.

You say that women have too much power with rape accusation as a weapon. Give me a ****ing break. YOUR physical power is used against us far more often. Get over yourselves.

So, the crux of your argument is that because men are (generally) more physically powerful than women, women should have a stronger representation than their counter-sex in the eyes of the law. And this smacks of equality….how, exactly? Sorry honey, doesn’t work that way.

Being falsly accused of rape should not be the concern of the average man.

Oh but it is, for the reasons I outlined above. Once the “R” word starts circulating, you’re done for, whether you did anything or not. That’s a stigma you can’t get rid of, even if the courts find you not guilty.

There are far more women who are actually sexually assaulted than there are men who find themselves falsly accused.

This is certainly true. Does this mean, however, that those men are any less important in the eyes of the law? Is this what your brand of “equality” will bring?

Here's an idea, women wouldnt be raped by men if men would stop raping women.

Circular logic at its finest.

-=Vel=-

[monkspider]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


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.

I'm not sure why you believe that questioning feminism equates not believeing any of these statements. That is no different than the "with us or against us" position of neo-cons, comrade.

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.

While I agree with you that the concerns of women should be taken seriously, just as the concerns of men, whites, hispanics, jews, gays, et al should be taken seriously, and should be a paramount concern of any society. Why does socialism need a seperate and independent movement for women exclusively? The only logical conclusion of such a path is oppression for those are different than the members of said group. Socialism must break down barriers in order to suceed, not create new ones. While I do not doubt that you understand the history of feminism greater than I, I believe that in this case it is to your detriment. Your attachment to that old order of things has clouded your vision, my friend.

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.

So be it Che, I do not believe that socialism can suceed with the "us and them" mentality that feminism espouses, and if that does not make me a "real" socialist, then that is what fate has decreed. Socialism will only suceed when it learns that people should be loved and accepted regardless of their gender, regardless of their race, regardless of their sexual orientation. But if socialism is a movement that necessitates taking orders from, or being in league with a group as divisive as feminists, then that is not a movement that I want to be a part of. My apologies, comrade.

[Velociryx]

I'm about as far from bein' red as a fellow can get, Monk, but very well spoken!

-=Vel=-

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
To Che,

Who were the great conservative leaders who said that women who claimed to be raped were treated abominably by society?


Counter-Question: Who were the great liberal leaders who thought for just a moment about how abominably men who are falsely accused of rape are treated by society?

Really, are they? Given that I know three people I strongly suspect were guilty of rape, and that others knew this as well, and that they got along with their lives just fine, I'm wondering how abominable this treatment is. Hell, one guy even admitted that he did in fact rape the person he was accussed of raping, and the school pressured police to lower the charges to assault. A year later, he was an Residenence Associate, with keys to the women's dorm, not that there were any further complaints against him.

A person I know who was falsely accused of rape received no ill-will at all. People simply went, right, sure. That's four people accused of rape that I know who went on with no problems, one of whom admitted it and two others I believe did do it.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q] Originally posted by Velociryx
A person I know who was falsely accused of rape received no ill-will at all. People simply went, right, sure. That's four people accused of rape that I know who went on with no problems, one of whom admitted it and two others I believe did do it.

Maybe, because you live in a larger town, where things are more anonymous than in a small city with a few thousand inhabitants?

It seems to be usually the small towns (where people also are often more religious and go to the church on sundays) where withhunts are most likely to occur.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There are far more women who are actually sexually assaulted than there are men who find themselves falsly accused.

So wait... since there is a bigger crime, we should ignore the smaller crime totally? Well far more people are murdered than sexually assaulted, so we should just forget sexual assault.

What a silly statement.

All injustices should be recitifed. It does not matter whether one happens more than another. We shouldn't let an injustice go because it is rare.

When I was in Jr. High, a (rather large and overbearing) girl told the vice principal and her parents that my friend and I were "stalking" her.

I must agree, Asher, that too many women pull out the 'stalking' card. Yes, there are many sicko men that stalk women, but former friends who you haven't told to "Go Away!" and thus keep trying to talk to you ARE NOT stalkers. Sometimes I want to yell this to my lady friends when they say so-and-so is stalking them! I always ask them if they told the guy to leave you alone. They invariably end up saying "That'd be mean".

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by monkspider
Why does socialism need a seperate and independent movement for women exclusively?

Socialism doesn't need a seperate and independent movement for women exclusively. It's failures to address the needs of women adequately, however, led to one. Furthermore, many women don't want to be socialists or believe in socialism. Should they be denied freedom simply because they don't believe in socialism?

The only logical conclusion of such a path is oppression for those are different than the members of said group.

The oppression of women is different than the oppression of workers, of Black people, etc. It is combined with them, so that a Black working class woman suffers more greatly than a white woman or a Black man. Black women needed their own feminism because bourgie white feminists has a serious problem with being dismissive of the concerns of Black women. Should Black women have ignored this and heeded their white sisters calls for automatic soliderity? It took over a decade for their concerns to be taken seriously in the 3rd wave of feminism. Let's just forget, for now, the racist suffregettes.

Socialism must break down barriers in order to suceed, not create new ones.

You can't break down barriers while you're pissing people off. If you dismiss feminists, you won't win them over to socialism. In fact, you only reinforce their fears that the old patriarchal modes of relations will be reestablished.

While I do not doubt that you understand the history of feminism greater than I, I believe that in this case it is to your detriment. Your attachment to that old order of things has clouded your vision, my friend.

History is people's lived experiences. You cannot discount the battles people have fought, the lives they have lived, the relationships between people. When you tell people who's lives have gotten materially better because of an idea and movement that it is a danger, that it is devisive, retrograde, they will tune you out, if you're lukcy, or give you an earful if you aren't (though you tend to learn more the latter way).

And you can't dismiess a movement of which you have no understanding. At the very least, you should take some classes in feminist theory in all it's multifaceted glory instead of simply dismissing it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Maybe, because you live in a larger town, where things are more anonymous than in a small city with a few thousand inhabitants?

It seems to be usually the small towns (where people also are often more religious and go to the church on sundays) where withhunts are most likely to occur.

There are a lot of reasons, that's probably part of it (though I grew up in a town that only had 7,500 people when I moved there). I also grew up while people's perceptions of what constituted rape changed. As I mentioned previously, in the 1970s, the idea that a man could rape his wife was considered laughable, but that changed. It wasn't until the late 1980s, early 1990s that the women's movement made us realize that date rape was a serious problem also. It could well be that I knew people who had been raped, but we just didn't realize that they had been. I've known women who've said they weren't raped, they were just forced to have sex. That was ten years ago.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q] Originally posted by monkspider
Why does socialism need a seperate and independent movement for women exclusively?Socialism doesn't need a seperate and independent movement for women exclusively. It's failures to address the needs of women adequately, however, led to one. Furthermore, many women don't want to be socialists or believe in socialism. Should they be denied freedom simply because they don't believe in socialism?

Of course not, but the thing is, when society has advanced enough to achieve socialism, equality for women goes without saying. Dividing the world by gender only repeats the mistakes that humanity has made for centuries and can only lead to oppression.

The oppression of women is different than the oppression of workers, of Black people, etc. It is combined with them, so that a Black working class woman suffers more greatly than a white woman or a Black man. Black women needed their own feminism because bourgie white feminists has a serious problem with being dismissive of the concerns of Black women. Should Black women have ignored this and heeded their white sisters calls for automatic soliderity? It took over a decade for their concerns to be taken seriously in the 3rd wave of feminism. Let's just forget, for now, the racist suffregettes.

I agree with you here.

You can't break down barriers while you're pissing people off. If you dismiss feminists, you won't win them over to socialism. In fact, you only reinforce their fears that the old patriarchal modes of relations will be reestablished.

While we should try to win the hearts and minds of feminists, it should be by showing them the better world that awaits them when humanity can be judged by the content of their character, not by the genitals that reside in their pants. Not by adapting their ideas. Feminism is the old order of things, and we're better off without it. In fact, adapting their ideas would inevitably be fatal to any egalitarian society for reasons I have stated in the previous post as well as this one.

History is people's lived experiences. You cannot discount the battles people have fought, the lives they have lived, the relationships between people. When you tell people who's lives have gotten materially better because of an idea and movement that it is a danger, that it is devisive, retrograde, they will tune you out, if you're lukcy, or give you an earful if you aren't (though you tend to learn more the latter way).

And you can't dismiess a movement of which you have no understanding. At the very least, you should take some classes in feminist theory in all it's multifaceted glory instead of simply dismissing it.

You're right, I do not wish for history to be dismissed or forgotten, I only wish that it's lessons be learned, and we move on to something better. I greatly admire feminist leaders of the past, they have helped to pave the way for a better world. But this better world will only come about when we put away "us and them"-style philosophies, such as, but of course not limited to, feminism.

Also, I know more of feminism than you probably give me credit for. I have dated a feminist, read various feminist literature, and even known a feminist professor. No matter how much more I read will change what feminism is, though. It is a philosophy that once served a positive purpose, but now will only hold the world in chains. Bunnygrrl herself said that anyone who does not see things her way is guilty of nothing short of hatred for all women. That is not the type of philosophy that will lead to a more just, and enlightened world. In fact, it is one that will only do harm to such ideals. I do not wish to boil your blood comrade, and I hope that you might one day see things my way.