Thread: Fuck the Amerixan injustice system Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005581
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
And fuck this piece of shite rapist, his father and the judge. This case has nearly everything wrong possible. White privilege, affluenza and misogyny.
I am so furious, I'm wishing for the three of them to be penetrated for 20 minutes.
Oh, for those of you too stupid to realise that this is angry expression, fuck you.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
The victim statement - which I think is from the case you're describing - is one of the most powerful things I've ever read.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
I'm afraid my ability to be shocked by evil people has been overrun by reality. This didn't surprise me at all. It just enforces my wish to stay the fuck away from a humanity that still allows this kind of appalling thinking.
I hope the son, the father, the judge, and most importantly their immediate peers who let them think this was okay, to die. Slowly. By fire. Feeling every fucking moment of it.
While the victim and the rest of society roasts marshmallows.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Ugh, that's a horrible idea. Can you imagine how bad the marshmallows will taste permeated with misogynist-smoke?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I know it sounds a bit stupid - and I don't mean it to be - but I really hope that this boy doesn't end up going around schools doing presentations on excess drinking (which I think I read his father seemed to be suggesting he would be) and instead spends a lot of time doing something very mundane. A massive cross-stitch, some extended wood whittling, something like that. I hope that in about 5 minutes, everyone will forget about him and he'll not return as a sportsperson, a politician, a lawyer or anything else like that.
And I really hope that the victim is able to use her talent and anger to achieve something really good with her life.
If I was a deity and could move some levers, that's what I'd be doing here, I think.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
I had a hard time deciding what was the worst thing about this foetid pile of garbage, but in the end, I decided it was the dad's statement.
You know - the one that had no kind of recognition that his son had raped someone, and a whole bunch of whining about how his steak-eating, chip-loving all-star swimmer son is now going to have his life choices constrained because he's labelled as a rapist because of one brief little incident.
Which is a shame, really, because hidden in the morass of excuses, victim-blaming, and entitlement were hints of a truth.
The rapist went to a party, got drunk, and raped a young woman who was incapable of consent. We are asked to believe by his father that he wouldn't have raped anyone had he been sober. Maybe that's true.
So here's the truth:
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS.
Being drunk is not an excuse. If you run the risk of making bad choices, don't put yourself in that situation, or you might have to deal with the consequences.
In this case, we are asked to believe that a fine upstanding young swimmer was lead astray by drink. Bullshit. If you are able to rape someone when your inhibitions are lowered through drink, you're not a fine upstanding young man - you are a sleazy sexual predator.
Not all sleazy predators are rapists, but if you have the mind of a sleazy predator, then you're far more at risk for committing rape than if you don't.
If the rapist in this case spoke about that - if he came out and gave an honest account of the way he thought about women, and talked about his corrosive sexual objectification attitude towards women, his choice to try and acquire sex from drunk women at a party, and his drinking dulling his awareness of the consequences led to him raping someone, and that now he has to live with the consequences of being a rapist for the rest of his life, then maybe that would be helpful.
But he doesn't have enough self-honesty for that. What he has is whining, and excuses.
Sure, I'd prefer it if young men would learn that young women are people, rather than targets, but maybe this is an easier step.
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS.
Even if you get drunk. So sober you needs to think about what position he's going to put drunk you into.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
... and then the dad wanting to turn it into a statement about the dangers of "drinking and promiscuity". Like the son's crime was cheating on his girlfriend. Yeah, that's what we're so pissed about. Not the fact that you violently assaulted an unconscious woman. It's the fact that he was "promiscuous".
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I have been comforting myself with thoughts of this boy's employment prospects. Which are zero. You would not hire him. What corporation would? It would lay them open to massive liability the first time he feels up a secretary. Far easier to hire one of the many many applicants who is not a convicted rapist, eh? Any internet search will turn up this guy's name, from now until the heat death of the universe. He'll never have a security clearance, never be able to join the military, get a pilot's license, run for office.
And his dating prospects. Zero, one would hope, although there are ditzy women would would find this history attractive. Certainly no parent would willingly allow this jerk to date his daughter. His best hope would be a name change, but facial recognition software is getting very powerful. Perhaps combined with plastic surgery...
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
"A long sentence would be 'a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 years of life'," Dan Turner wrote.
What it he'd fatally shot or stabbed a few dozen people in 20 minutes? Should he get off easy because it was only 20 minutes?
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
And he didn't just have sex, did he? He stuck something which was not him into her. How do he, his father and the judge think that isn't a serious assault?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Well, he only stuck it in there for a few minutes, so...
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
"Twenty minutes of action." Meh.
I wonder if she could sue him, take his trust fund.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Reports on this have been difficult for me to read, so I may have misunderstood, but how come the perpetrator's father could write a letter to the judge? Isn't that considered to be interfering with the due process of the law? Or was it published as an "open letter" in the media, rather than a direct communication? With the sense of entitlement both he and his son have it is clear this rotten apple didn't fall far from the tree.
I am in awe of the ability of the woman who made such an articulate, powerful statement.
Huia
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Reports on this have been difficult for me to read, so I may have misunderstood, but how come the perpetrator's father could write a letter to the judge? Isn't that considered to be interfering with the due process of the law? Or was it published as an "open letter" in the media, rather than a direct communication? With the sense of entitlement both he and his son have it is clear this rotten apple didn't fall far from the tree.
Somehow it appears to have been allowed as mitigation before sentencing. I could be wrong - but it sounds like it was part of the legal process.
quote:
I am in awe of the ability of the woman who made such an articulate, powerful statement.
Huia
Me too. I hope she is studying to be a lawyer, on the basis of that she's going to be bloody brilliant.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
If you thought this all sounds like something from the Onion..
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
It's pretty wretched. Another example that the rich who hire good lawyers can avoid responsibility for their actions.
There's an interesting description of Judge Persky
( NY Times paywall after limited articles)
Despite having run on his record prosecuting violent sex offenders, it seems he identified with the defendant as a fellow college athlete.
As for the father, it's easy to mourn that one's son has lost his way. To minimize it as "20 minutes of action" is pretty despicable. It will be interesting to see if the son gets a few hours of action while in jail.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Murder can be just 20 seconds of action, or less. Since when does how long something takes become a measure of how wrong it is, or how despicable, or how much it should affect your life?
I'd like to see Dad go to prison with Lad. They're both despicable.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for the father, it's easy to mourn that one's son has lost his way.
Some time ago, I remember reading about the father of a convicted murderer. Murderer was scheduled to be executed. Father shows up, and the press are on him like a pack of hyenas. Father's words were something like "My son has done a terrible thing. I am here to help him die. Then I'm going home to grieve."
That's a father who loves his son but isn't afraid to face the truth.
This weasel? Apple, meet tree.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Because I can't cope with the major horror, I'm going to focus on a minor horror: what the fuck is this "20 minutes of action" the father speaks of? "Action" is what a sleazeball but non-rapist American guy says he's going looking for when he's trying to pick up a girl at a bar. "I'm gonna get me some 'action,'" meaning enjoyable active sex with a willing partner. He's devaluing the woman, of course, by putting the whole encounter in terms of what he's going to get, but it's not rape. It's just sleazy and yeccchhh.
But rape is a whole different universe of bad. Rape is not "action." It is AN action by one evil person upon a victim, and a damned unpleasant one at that.
For the father to refer to the rape as "20 minutes of action" in the context of American English says pretty strongly to me that he doesn't understand the meaning of rape any better than his son does. It's like saying "20 minutes of tail." What an asshole.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
For the father to refer to the rape as "20 minutes of action" in the context of American English says pretty strongly to me that he doesn't understand the meaning of rape any better than his son does. It's like saying "20 minutes of tail." What an asshole.
Hard to see this as anything other than a deliberate legal strategy to downplay the event and the impact on the victim.
Yeah, ok, my son interfered with a young unconscious woman - but he was drunk, she was drunk, and it wasn't technically "rape", right? She'll get over it, he's got his life planned out in front of him and we can all move on.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
This event is local to me (I've walked by the spot where the assault happened a number of times over the decades) and it has been very much on the local news since it happened (you probably don't want to read the comments section of the university newspaper given a few of the comments though the majority are supportive of Emily Doe). There is one bright spot in the two grad students who were biking by, realized something was wrong, intervened, and then tackled and pinned Turner to the ground when he ran away. I call to hell those commenters who say they shouldn't have intervened because then Emily Doe wouldn't have known she was sexually assaulted and so wouldn't have been traumatized. (and of course Brock Turner's life wouldn't have been ruined.)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for the father, it's easy to mourn that one's son has lost his way.
Some time ago, I remember reading about the father of a convicted murderer. Murderer was scheduled to be executed. Father shows up, and the press are on him like a pack of hyenas. Father's words were something like "My son has done a terrible thing. I am here to help him die. Then I'm going home to grieve."
That's a father who loves his son but isn't afraid to face the truth.
This weasel? Apple, meet tree.
That was Timothy McVeigh. The father also said that while he had committed a horrible crime, he was still his son. Very sad. An enormous difference between that dignity and what's going on in this case.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
There is one bright spot in the two grad students who were biking by, realized something was wrong, intervened, and then tackled and pinned Turner to the ground when he ran away. I call to hell those commenters who say they shouldn't have intervened because then Emily Doe wouldn't have known she was sexually assaulted and so wouldn't have been traumatized. (and of course Brock Turner's life wouldn't have been ruined.)
I think I read that they were foreign students, too.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Over here there has been a case of a young man who has serially abused young children in the Far East. He came back, the case broke, he owned up to his parents, who immediately rang the police and said 'take him away, we don't want him in this house any more'.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
'20 minutes of action', eh? I think father and son should be sent over here and find out what '20 minutes of action' with Big Ron on D Wing in the showers in Parkhurst feels like...
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I've been reading some of the accounts of the case, and would like an explanation of the difference between jail and prison and why he deserves one and not the other. I'm used to using the words interchangeably over here, without any difference in regime implied.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
The context of that question was a piece by a Scott Herhold* of the 'Mercury News' arguing that 6 months in county jail was correct because Turner does not deserve state prison. The article included this:
quote:
Turner met the victim at a party at the Kappa Alpha fraternity. Both were drunk: The woman was so drunk that she does not remember what happened. On the stand, she acknowledged having blacked out on several previous occasions while drinking.
At some point, the two lay down on the ground near a trash bin, where Turner assaulted the woman, who was unconscious when the Swedish students came upon the scene.
Which seems pretty close to victim blaming in the absence of evidence of how she got there.
*His surname seems unfortunate in this case.
And, separately, the father started a fund for people to contribute to in order to help the Turners meet the expenses of the defence!!!
[ 08. June 2016, 09:54: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
And there has been found a woman friend of the defendant to defend him as a victim of political correctness.
US Weekly
quote:
“I don’t think it’s fair to base the fate of the next 10+ years of his life on the decision of a girl who doesn’t remember anything but the amount she drank to press charges against him. I am not blaming her directly for this, because that isn’t right,” she wrote to Judge Persky. “But where do we draw the line and stop worrying about being politically correct every second of the day and see that rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists.”
She then went on to argue that sexual assaults driven by alcohol are different than an assault in which a woman is abducted and raped.
“This is completely different from a woman getting kidnapped and raped as she is walking to her car in a parking lot,” Rasmussen continued. “That is a rapist. These are not rapists. These are idiot boys and girls having too much to drink and not being aware of their surroundings and having clouded judgment.”
She needs to read the victim's letter. Several times. Carefully.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Woman friend posted above:
“I don’t think it’s fair to base the fate of the next 10+ years of his life on the decision of a girl who doesn’t remember anything but the amount she drank to press charges against him. I am not blaming her directly for this, because that isn’t right,” she wrote to Judge Persky. “But where do we draw the line and stop worrying about being politically correct every second of the day and see that rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists.”
OK lady, so you're drunk off your face and lying in the middle of the road. By your argument it wouldn't be right for you to press charges if I deliberately drive over your head with my truck.
No. Don't talk shit.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
To complete the analogy, the truck driver would also have to be off his face....so that's alright then...
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Penny--
Re jail/prison:
My understanding is that, generally, US jails are less-worse places for people who've done less-worse things. (And sometimes for people charged but not tried, who can't make bail.) Prisons are horrible places, for people who've done much worse things. And then there are places like Pelican Bay State Prison, which is known to drive men insane.
However, California's prisons are massively over-crowded, and many prisoners have been shunted off to jails. And San Francisco jail had a problem with law-enforcement officers forcing prisoners into a fight club.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
This event is local to me (I've walked by the spot where the assault happened a number of times over the decades) and it has been very much on the local news since it happened (you probably don't want to read the comments section of the university newspaper given a few of the comments though the majority are supportive of Emily Doe). There is one bright spot in the two grad students who were biking by, realized something was wrong, intervened, and then tackled and pinned Turner to the ground when he ran away. I call to hell those commenters who say they shouldn't have intervened because then Emily Doe wouldn't have known she was sexually assaulted and so wouldn't have been traumatized. (and of course Brock Turner's life wouldn't have been ruined.)
I think when you wake up next to a dumpster with your clothes ripped off, all sorts of bruises and abrasions, and pine needles stuck up your vagina, you're going to figure it out...
Totally agree about the two Swedish students, who have recently been identified. I loved the part in the victim's beautiful statement where she talks about them. She didn't even know their names, but she drew a picture of two bicycles and taped it to the wall over the bed where she cannot sleep at night. A beautiful image and reminder that most men bear no resemblance to the scumbag who did this.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The state of prisons/jails is another example of the poor state of the criminal justice system. But, don't worry. When Trump is elected he'll get to appoint some Supreme Court justices, they'll solve all these problems of lenient judges. And, deport all those people filling up the prisons. The Mexican government will need the cheap labour to build the Wall.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And there has been found a woman friend of the defendant to defend him as a victim of political correctness.
US Weekly
quote:
“I don’t think it’s fair to base the fate of the next 10+ years of his life on the decision of a girl who doesn’t remember anything but the amount she drank to press charges against him. I am not blaming her directly for this, because that isn’t right,” she wrote to Judge Persky. “But where do we draw the line and stop worrying about being politically correct every second of the day and see that rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists.”
She then went on to argue that sexual assaults driven by alcohol are different than an assault in which a woman is abducted and raped.
“This is completely different from a woman getting kidnapped and raped as she is walking to her car in a parking lot,” Rasmussen continued. “That is a rapist. These are not rapists. These are idiot boys and girls having too much to drink and not being aware of their surroundings and having clouded judgment.”
She needs to read the victim's letter. Several times. Carefully.
As well as take a few classes in logic. She wants people to "see that rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists”??? Uh, yes it is. Anyone who rapes is, by definition, a rapist, Even if they also happen to be an athlete or really smart or cute or your good friend from high school. So yeah, rape on campuses or anywhere else happens because there are people who are rapists.
And, while it's easy to mock her for such rhetorical idiocy, it's also really scary-- because she, too, is a young college-age woman, and is buying into the sort of thinking that makes this sort of horrific event all the more likely to occur.
[ 08. June 2016, 13:47: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There is also a difference between pre-trial custody (to keep you on hand if you don't make bail) and the place they send you after you are convicted.
Sadly, the US prison system is as tiered as the rest of society. If you are a well-off white-collar criminal, or elderly, or white, you can wrangle your way into a country-club facility with others of your kidney, where you get to sort books in the prison library or something. The Rikers Island type prisons you see on TV dramas are reserved, alas, for violent prisoners, persons of color or ethnicity, and poor people.
This differentiation dates well back in time. I happened to tour the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia last month -- it was a model Victorian prison, and Charles Dickens visited it. Al Capone did about six months there, and they have preserved his cell as it was when he was incarcerated. You would love it -- the oriental carpet, the Philco radio, the desk, the armchair, the study lamp. It looks like the study of an Oxford don. The other cells look like dog kennels. He had money and power, you see.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
She wants people to "see that rape on campuses isn’t always because people are rapists”??? Uh, yes it is. Anyone who rapes is, by definition, a rapist
It's not really all that difficult. Person A wants sex with person B, if they do so and any of the following apply then it is rape, and person A is a rapist.
- Person B says "No"
- Person B is unable to say anything at all
- Person B is off their face from too much drink and doesn't know what they're saying
- Several other scenarios whereby person B does not give full and free consent
If person A is also off their face from too much drink then that doesn't mean they aren't a rapist. It means they're a rapist who committed the crime while intoxicated.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Well-established principle that drunkeness is no defence
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Anyone who rapes is, by definition, a rapist, Even if they also happen to be an athlete or really smart or cute or your good friend from high school.
Quite.
We all know that people get drunk and have sex that they regret in the morning. It's been a staple of comedy practically forever - someone is drinking at a party, bar, or whatever, and wakes up naked in bed with their best friend's boy/girlfriend, their best friend, their best friend's mother or father, or just someone old and unattractive that they would never normally give a second glance to.
Drunk people taking each other's clothes off isn't rape, even if you regret it in the morning.* That's not what this was. From the evidence of the two Swedish students who found them, the victim was passed out on the floor, and the attacker was humping her body.
IF SHE'S PASSED OUT, SHE'S NOT CONSENTING TO ANYTHING.
Even if she was ripping your clothes off five minutes ago, she's now unresponsive. She's a person, not a sex toy. Stop fucking her unresponsive body.
*Colleges seem to have muddied the waters on this a bit. They've had good intentions, but have managed to conflate drunk stupid sex with rape, and it's probably this kind of conflation that has fuelled the kind of nonsense "defense" that the woman writing the letter makes.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I have a question for everyone who thinks six months is not enough time. How much time do you think he should do?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Five years. That is, ten, if you get half off.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Somewhere between 6 months and the 35 years given to another 19 year old university athlete who raped a young woman who was unconscious.
Guess the difference between the two perpetrators. (I'm on a different computer so can't use history to get the link, and spent rather too much time on this this morning.)
[ 08. June 2016, 15:38: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I have a question for everyone who thinks six months is not enough time. How much time do you think he should do?
I think six months is not enough simply because it is less than the general minimum for such a conviction. I could stomach the judge allotting the minimum sentence, for whatever reasons the judge judged with his judgey judgement.
But since this case is outside of the sentencing guidelines, I think it is reasonable to expect that there should be some exceptional reason for such leniency for this particular unrepentant convicted rapist.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Correction to the above. The other case had a sentence of 15 to 25 mandatory minimum.
Link to article.
[ 08. June 2016, 16:27: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I have a question for everyone who thinks six months is not enough time. How much time do you think he should do?
The Court of Appeal sentencing for my Canadian province says 4 years is the starting point for a "penetration" offence, with aggravating factors increasing the time. Those factors are violence include addition to violence-by-definition of a sexual assault. Re parole, the Canadian system indicates in general that 1/6 of the sentence served is enough for day parole and 1/3 for full parole. However, for offences of violence against people, the lines shift such that parole of any kind won't be considered until 1/3 or 1/2 of sentence. I don't know the statistics for "detention", but it is common for violent and sexual offenders to to be "detained" for the entire length of their sentence.
Personally I think sentences for many sexual offences should be life, e.g., stranger rapists. With life meaning a period of lock-up, followed by permanent parole, which may involve lifetime electronic ankle bracelet monitoring for life, and the system having the authority to return the offender to custody at any time risks and lifestyle stability suggest someone could be harmed. The rights of the sex offender are secondary, and our empathy/sympathy is always misplaced if we consider their rights and life as more important than those they've assaulted and harmed who may recover rather well, but it is never gone.
I haven't read the details of this rapist's crime in any detail and don't intend to. Presumably there is a Court of Appeal in this American jurisdiction? Which would apply guidelines for reasonable sentencing and revise? Otherwise, it would appear that all the wrong people get shot.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I have a question for everyone who thinks six months is not enough time. How much time do you think he should do?
As others have said, I think his punishment should fall above the minimum of the normal range (because he hasn't shown any kind of understanding of his crime, an especially light sentence sends the wrong message both to him and to other people like him).
AIUI, the normal sentence for forcible penetration with an object (one of the three felonies the criminal was convicted of) is between three and eight years in state prison.
So that's the starting point. 3-8 is the range, with "mild" cases falling at the low end and "bad" cases at the high end.
The prosecution argued for six years, claiming that purposely isolating the incapable victim and taking her behind the dumpsters is an aggravating factor that places this beyond the "typical" campus date rape.
I don't know that I particularly buy that as an aggravating factor. Actually, it looks like the options might be 3, 6 or 8 years rather than a continuous scale, in which case I have a binary choice between 3 and 6 years. Probably in this case I chose 3, although I'd quite like to choose 4.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I think three to four seems about right, too.
Due to the whims of the media, this case has received so much more attention than so many, similar and worse, crimes. The perpetrator will be on the receiving end of the sort of hatred usually reserved for pedophiles and no one will soon forget.
He committed a crime. He assaulted a defenseless woman, so he should be given a sentence that is on the scale for similar crimes. What I don't think is that he should be held responsible for his father's idiotic, inflammatory letter, or on the other hand be punished more harshly due to the particularly eloquent letter of his victim and the talent of the professional newscaster who read it to the world.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think three to four seems about right, too.
Due to the whims of the media, this case has received so much more attention than so many, similar and worse, crimes. The perpetrator will be on the receiving end of the sort of hatred usually reserved for pedophiles and no one will soon forget.
He committed a crime. He assaulted a defenseless woman, so he should be given a sentence that is on the scale for similar crimes. What I don't think is that he should be held responsible for his father's idiotic, inflammatory letter, or on the other hand be punished more harshly due to the particularly eloquent letter of his victim and the talent of the professional newscaster who read it to the world.
He also shouldn't receive a sentence that is a fraction of what other young men who differ only in their skin color have rec'd for the exact same crime.
fyi: Pedophiles are hated because of the extreme danger they pose to others. Rapists-- all rapists, not just this one-- are pretty much in the same category, for the same reason. See: Bill Cosby.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think three to four seems about right, too.
Due to the whims of the media, this case has received so much more attention than so many, similar and worse, crimes. The perpetrator will be on the receiving end of the sort of hatred usually reserved for pedophiles and no one will soon forget.
Please help me understand. A man who forces himself onto an unconscious woman should not be publicised or called out because there are worse crimes we should be talking about..?
FFS. I don't suppose anyone really gives a shit how long he is in prison, the real pain that the victim expresses is that everyone - the guy, his father even the fucking judge in the trial - seems to be conspiring to downplay the fact that he's interfered with an unconscious person because, y'know, he's just a jock.
If he goes to prison for 3 years and comes out with the same attitude - thinking that society has done him something wrong and that he should be able to turn his life around with a book deal and a nice city job - then nothing has changed, has it?
If he went to prison for one day but that experience somehow shook him up to the extent that he actually understands and takes responsibility for his actions - that would be a result.
quote:
He committed a crime. He assaulted a defenseless woman, so he should be given a sentence that is on the scale for similar crimes. What I don't think is that he should be held responsible for his father's idiotic, inflammatory letter, or on the other hand be punished more harshly due to the particularly eloquent letter of his victim and the talent of the professional newscaster who read it to the world.
I'm sorry, that doesn't even seem to vaguely relate to the truth. At present he has a punishment which is the absolute minimum that he could be given - and the judge said specifically (IIRC) that was partly due to the representation by the father.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The judge also received a boatload of pleading letters from friends, family and influential persons.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I wonder if it is also because he is not only white, with friends, but pretty.
And people can't believe he would find it so difficult to get a girl to sleep with that he had to rape her.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The judge also received a boatload of pleading letters from friends, family and influential persons.
I am not sure what those letters were. Were they character references handed up in open court, having first been shown to the prosecutor? That is a standard procedure in any sentencing hearing.
As to sentence, that varies here from state to state. NSW sentences seem to be heavier than those in Tasmania for example for what seem comparable offences. Nothing wrong with that as we are then talking of different communities. What matters more is consistency within a jurisdiction. I do not know what he was charged with nor the maximum sentence there for that offence. Were he to have been charged here, the maximum for sexual assault is presently 14 years. (There is no longer a crime of rape by that name- the definition of sexual assault covers it and a whole range of other activity.)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I am not sure what those letters were. Were they character references handed up in open court, having first been shown to the prosecutor? That is a standard procedure in any sentencing hearing.
Help me with these character references. Say I have two rapists of similar ages, and the circumstances surrounding the rapes are similar.
One rapist is a high school dropout with a couple of shoplifting convictions and a generally insecure life. The other rapist is a college sports star, gets good grades at a decent college, and has a life history full of helping little old ladies across roads and raising money for charity.
Should their punishments be different? It seems to me that the answer is no, because none of this character evidence has anything to do with sexual misbehaviour. I have no reason to believe that the low-grade criminal is any more likely to attack other women than the choirboy.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I wonder if it is also because he is not only white, with friends, but pretty.
And people can't believe he would find it so difficult to get a girl to sleep with that he had to rape her.
Just to clarify: the "people"-- i.e. jury-- found him guilty. So there was no problem with people in general believing that he committed rape (the evidence seems pretty conclusive). It was the judge who seems to have trouble grasping the concept-- hence the recall petition circling the web. Those pushing the petition are suggesting it's because Brock has similar background to the judge-- white, male, star athlete at a prestigious college. We can't really know for sure, but it definitely is out of line with the norm-- and that's a problem. The only explanation the judge seemed willing to offer was along the lines of "he has such a promising future".
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
We Americans are benefiting from this helpful video provided by our friends cross-pond.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think three to four seems about right, too.
Due to the whims of the media, this case has received so much more attention than so many, similar and worse, crimes. The perpetrator will be on the receiving end of the sort of hatred usually reserved for pedophiles and no one will soon forget.
Please help me understand. A man who forces himself onto an unconscious woman should not be publicised or called out because there are worse crimes we should be talking about..? quote:
I didn't say he shouldn't be talked about, but that he has been to a much greater degree than usual. That adds a little something to the overall punishment he is experiencing.
[quote]FFS. I don't suppose anyone really gives a shit how long he is in prison, the real pain that the victim expresses is that everyone - the guy, his father even the fucking judge in the trial - seems to be conspiring to downplay the fact that he's interfered with an unconscious person because, y'know, he's just a jock.
You seem to forget that he was judged guilty of the crime, will be on a registered sex offender list for the rest of his life, and will do time in jail. The amount of time may not matter to you, but I know that first offenders sometimes only end up serving a few years for murder. I think what he did was wrong but not as wrong as murder.
quote:
If he goes to prison for 3 years and comes out with the same attitude - thinking that society has done him something wrong and that he should be able to turn his life around with a book deal and a nice city job - then nothing has changed, has it?
Do you apply that logic to all criminals. No matter what the crime you think they should get life in prison unless they can prove some sort of sweeping change? Criminals are required to serve their sentence, not change the world or manage to turn back time and undo what they have done. Why shouldn't he be allowed to try to turn his life around? That's part of the work of repentance.
quote:
He committed a crime. He assaulted a defenseless woman, so he should be given a sentence that is on the scale for similar crimes. What I don't think is that he should be held responsible for his father's idiotic, inflammatory letter, or on the other hand be punished more harshly due to the particularly eloquent letter of his victim and the talent of the professional newscaster who read it to the world.
quote:
I'm sorry, that doesn't even seem to vaguely relate to the truth. At present he has a punishment which is the absolute minimum that he could be given - and the judge said specifically (IIRC) that was partly due to the representation by the father.
So what doesn't "relate to the truth?" I said what I thought the sentence should be and what I would consider or not take into account if I were the judge. Of course what I would do is not the same as what the actual judge did. I think he was way off base. Too light a sentence for starters and I don't think the kid's athletic ability should matter one iota. I've already said I thought the father's letter was idiotic. In short, I don't think you read my post very well before arguing with it.
P.S. I also think your habit of starting sentences with the false "Help me understand" and "I'm sorry," is obnoxious. You don't want to understand and you're not sorry so don't say it.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
We Americans are benefiting from this helpful video provided by our friends cross-pond.
Brilliant!
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
He also shouldn't receive a sentence that is a fraction of what other young men who differ only in their skin color have rec'd for the exact same crime.
Exact same crime? Honestly, I never heard of this exact crime before. Man finds unconscious woman and lies on her and fingers her. No penis penetration, no weapons, no hitting. I'm not saying it's better or worse than the typical, 'stranger forces woman at gun/knife point rape,' but surely it's different and you can't actually point to scores of examples of young black men doing the "exact same thing" and getting a harsher punishment can you?
The only similar thing I can think of is the Bill Cosby rapes and he deliberately lured women to his apartment, purposely drugged them to make them unconscious, and he did it to many, many women over the years. And so far hasn't been punished at all.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
The statute says MINIMUM 2 years. That means the "mildest" of assaults should get 2 years. Even if one takes the view that Entitled White Boy deserves a break for being a clever swimbot, or because he was homesick and drunk, he still should have gotten AT LEAST 2 years. Instead, he got 6 months. Judge Asshole Pricksky was known for handing out severe sentences, and yet this particular sentence was way out of line with his own standards. And the judge went to Stanford too.
If they're going to play their college boy games in the court of law, then they deserve to have the court of public opinion chew both of them up and shit them out, along with creepazoid "20 minutes of action" Dad. This is old-white-boy privilege at its most blatant and vicious. What the fuck does Bill Cosby have to do with it?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Yeah. Let's send his junk to jail for 6 years. He can stay with it or leave without it after 6 months as he so chooses.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Due to the whims of the media, this case has received so much more attention than so many, similar and worse, crimes.
I do not think it is a whim. It is because he received a less-than-minimum sentence and it appears he did so because he is a rich, white boy And the judge is an alumnus of the very same uni the little shit attends.
He raped, not assaulted, raped* a woman.
He showed no remorse except for what it might do to his Olympic hopes.
Why do you feel he should receive a light sentence?
*Yes, I know that technically California law calls it sexual assault, but it is rape.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
You seem to forget that he was judged guilty of the crime, will be on a registered sex offender list for the rest of his life, and will do time in jail.
I don't know any details but at least some registered sex offenders can petition the court to have that lifetime designation removed after ten years.
In these days of the web it won't be easy hide that past after the record is wiped, but officially removing the designation frees the person from legal restraints on where to live and what jobs to take.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I am not sure what those letters were. Were they character references handed up in open court, having first been shown to the prosecutor? That is a standard procedure in any sentencing hearing.
Help me with these character references. Say I have two rapists of similar ages, and the circumstances surrounding the rapes are similar.
One rapist is a high school dropout with a couple of shoplifting convictions and a generally insecure life. The other rapist is a college sports star, gets good grades at a decent college, and has a life history full of helping little old ladies across roads and raising money for charity.
Should their punishments be different? It seems to me that the answer is no, because none of this character evidence has anything to do with sexual misbehaviour. I have no reason to believe that the low-grade criminal is any more likely to attack other women than the choirboy.
There is a range of considerations which a judge should take into account in fixing a sentence (I am talking of here, other jurisdictions will vary). 3 of these are general deterrence, personal deterrence and rehabilitation. General deterrence deals with letting the general public know that if you commit a crime such as this, you can expect a sentence such as this. Personal deterrence looks more closely at the prisoner's own record - if there is a history of offending, less lenience will be given in the sentence for the matter now before the court.
Rehabilitation involves the judge estimating what the effect of the sentence will be on the prisoner. I don't know about California, but in NSW those imprisoned for sex offences are offered courses in gaol to help them realise the criminality of their behaviour and reduce the chance of future offending. Attendance is not directly compulsory but failure probably will affect release on parole when that becomes possible. A person with good character references will probably be adjudged more likely to respond positively to these programmes and that will affect the sentence. Further, a prisoner who will have strong family or community support on release will probably be given a lighter sentence also.
This sentence seems very light to me. In NSW, I would have thought an overall sentence of 4 years, with 3 years before being considered for parole (not expressed correctly but you get the message). I can think of some circumstances where the 6 months given would be appropriate; at the same time, there will be many cases where a much heavier sentence is called for.
Soros Magna I've done a quick search for rape penalties in California, but can't find any 2 year minimum. A range of other sentences, but no minimum. Can you give a reference please? If the judge has committed that sort of error, is there not the possibility of a prosecution appeal?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I didn't say he shouldn't be talked about, but that he has been to a much greater degree than usual. That adds a little something to the overall punishment he is experiencing.
No, sorry. Talking about a crime and the issues surrounding a crime is not a part of the punishment. Indeed, given there is supposed to be a free and fair system of criminal justice, the public are entitled to talk about any crime they want to talk about and infer any wider issues from it.
Because otherwise you have a police state where someone else decides which are and are not important crimes.
quote:
You seem to forget that he was judged guilty of the crime, will be on a registered sex offender list for the rest of his life, and will do time in jail. The amount of time may not matter to you, but I know that first offenders sometimes only end up serving a few years for murder. I think what he did was wrong but not as wrong as murder.
I'm not talking about murder, I'm talking about forced sexual interference.
We've heard that these crimes get punishments of between 2 and 35 years, and as you've said you think it is worth 2 years, then I was curious why you seem to have determined that this is the least-worst situation imaginable - even though you've later said that it is a crime you've never heard of before.
I was wondering how you'd arrived at that estimation, which appears to downplay the severity of the crime and doesn't seem to match the evidence - which is that someone took advantage sexually of someone else whilst they were unconscious.
In my mind, I was trying to think of the range of possible crimes that could be included in this range. I was thinking that likely at the bottom end would be two people of the same age below the age of consent who were caught playing around. At the top end is someone horrible crime we don't even want to type.
So you appear to be saying that because this crime isn't the worst anyone can imagine, it should be at the very bottom of the range, comparable with two teens who have been caught messing about sexually with each other. And that didn't seem to make much sense - unless you're a total dick who thinks that white jocks shouldn't get heavily slapped by the law when they're caught violating unconscious women.
quote:
Do you apply that logic to all criminals. No matter what the crime you think they should get life in prison unless they can prove some sort of sweeping change? Criminals are required to serve their sentence, not change the world or manage to turn back time and undo what they have done. Why shouldn't he be allowed to try to turn his life around? That's part of the work of repentance.
Personally I don't have a mechanistic understanding of justice. Prison to me isn't something we just use so that people can point at it and say to themselves "well, that guy went to prison, so that's all fine and dandy." To me, the important thing isn't punishment, it isn't even repentance, it is restoration to the community. That's true justice.
See, that's the stages that this guy needs to go through. First he needs to admit to himself that yes, this is a real crime, yes he did it and yes he needs to take responsibility for it. No excuses.
Second he needs to make amends. In our society that involves a loss of liberty and privilege. Ideally he also needs to make amends to the victim in some way, although this might not be possible.
Third he needs to ask for forgiveness and work on the changes in his own life to ensure it never happens again.
Fourth, providing all these steps have been honestly and full implemented, he needs to be properly restored to society.
That's not what is happening here. The guy, his father and the legal team seem to be trying to downplay the seriousness of what happened - because he is young, is a sportsman and has his whole life ahead of him - and somehow arguing that admittance of guilt, amendment of life and asking for forgiveness is not necessary.
I'd also say that the attitude of the judge is not helping because justice also needs to be seen to have been done. I don't personally much care how long he spends in prison, but clearly the judge is saying something about the seriousness of the crime with the sentence he has given.
quote:
So what doesn't "relate to the truth?" I said what I thought the sentence should be and what I would consider or not take into account if I were the judge. Of course what I would do is not the same as what the actual judge did. I think he was way off base. Too light a sentence for starters and I don't think the kid's athletic ability should matter one iota. I've already said I thought the father's letter was idiotic. In short, I don't think you read my post very well before arguing with it.
I don't see that you've answered even slightly why in a range of sentences from 2 to 35 years you think this deserves 2 years. And you're making all kinds of excuses which suggest that you don't really think it is very serious.
quote:
P.S. I also think your habit of starting sentences with the false "Help me understand" and "I'm sorry," is obnoxious. You don't want to understand and you're not sorry so don't say it.
I frankly couldn't give a shit what you think.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
We Americans are benefiting from this helpful video provided by our friends cross-pond.
This is awesome! And it even covers possibilities like wanting tea last week, but not *now*. I say this should be shown in grade school. Kids are sexually active much earlier, hitting puberty much earlier, and vulnerable to both other kids and adults. This would give them an idea of boundaries, IMHO, and possibly prevent many incidents.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The one thing it misses out on is "If they say 'I want coffee', don't get them tea".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Don't British judges add to or subtract from a sentence for pleading guilty, showing remorse, and so on? I think they do. A guy the other day was gloating on social media that he got a suspended sentence, and the judge whipped him back in court, and gave him two years.
I read that this guy neither pled guilty nor expressed remorse, but I haven't really checked it in fine detail.
6 months is a fucking joke. Raping while white and affluent, I suppose.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Oh, and TV news had some pics of the guy, evidently showing him using drugs before he went to college--so the claim that he was a clean-cut kid who never used drugs and got lost at college is evidently false, per the news.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I didn't say he shouldn't be talked about, but that he has been to a much greater degree than usual. That adds a little something to the overall punishment he is experiencing.
No, sorry. Talking about a crime and the issues surrounding a crime is not a part of the punishment. Indeed, given there is supposed to be a free and fair system of criminal justice, the public are entitled to talk about any crime they want to talk about and infer any wider issues from it.
Once again you're misreading me. I don't think the public should be restrained from talking about a crime. I do think that if it has happened and the perpetrator has received an unusual amount of notoriety -- the sort that will follow him the rest of his life -- then that might be considered a punishment. Not in any legal sense but in the reality of living his life.
quote:
You seem to forget that he was judged guilty of the crime, will be on a registered sex offender list for the rest of his life, and will do time in jail. The amount of time may not matter to you, but I know that first offenders sometimes only end up serving a few years for murder. I think what he did was wrong but not as wrong as murder.
I'm not talking about murder, I'm talking about forced sexual interference.
We've heard that these crimes get punishments of between 2 and 35 years, and as you've said you think it is worth 2 years, then I was curious why you seem to have determined that this is the least-worst situation imaginable - even though you've later said that it is a crime you've never heard of before.[/qb][/quote]
Once again you're misquoting me. I said 3 to 4 years seemed about right. Why do you think "unusual," and "excessively vile" are the same things? I happen to think that finger penetration is less invasive than being raped with a penis. This is an unusual case because most rape cases involve the latter.
quote:
I was wondering how you'd arrived at that estimation, which appears to downplay the severity of the crime and doesn't seem to match the evidence - which is that someone took advantage sexually of someone else whilst they were unconscious.
Well since I didn't arrive at 2 years, but 3-4 I probably shouldn't have addressed this "point," but you and others insist that I'm "down playing " what he did which I have not. In fact I read about this two days before it came here and was fuming about it all day. My husband and I spent the day thinking of horrible things you can do in 20 minutes. Then I calmed down and realized it isn't the boy's fault that his father is an asshole and he should be sentenced in comparison with similar crimes. That's when I decided that if I was the judge I would go with the shorter end of rape sentences, because there was no pre-meditation, no chance of getting her pregnant, no guns, knives or fists, no home invasion. If that's "down playing" then so be it. I would rather err on the side of leniency than be part of a rabid lynch mob based on the words of a perpetrator's relative.
quote:
In my mind, I was trying to think of the range of possible crimes that could be included in this range. I was thinking that likely at the bottom end would be two people of the same age below the age of consent who were caught playing around. At the top end is someone horrible crime we don't even want to type.
Do you think those two would be charged with rape in an adult court? I don't think they're on the spectrum at all.
quote:
So you appear to be saying that because this crime isn't the worst anyone can imagine, it should be at the very bottom of the range, comparable with two teens who have been caught messing about sexually with each other. And that didn't seem to make much sense - unless you're a total dick who thinks that white jocks shouldn't get heavily slapped by the law when they're caught violating unconscious women.
I hate most sports and don't think they should have anything at all to do with criminal sentencing, but while I don't think this man should have been given any leniency for being a college athlete, neither do I think he should be excessively punished for it as you and the Duke Lacrosse team's angry mob seem to think.
There's such a thing as white privilege and also such a thing as people who hate rich whites so much they are just as guilty of prejudice as the worst KKK member.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Somebody somewhere posted all the letters the judge received begging for mercy for the rapist. Now of course I can't find the link, but here is an article summarizing their content.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by Twilight quote:
There's such a thing as white privilege and also such a thing as people who hate rich whites so much they are just as guilty of prejudice as the worst KKK member.
But are the consequences of each the same? How many rich, white people go to prison simply because they are rich, white people?
How many rich, white people are refused housing and work and so on, because they are rich, white people?
This is what the extra outrage is about.
The little shit got a lesser sentence because he is a rich, white male.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Retired prosecuter in that article:
quote:
A retired federal prosecutor and friend of the Turner family, Margaret M. Quinn, asked the judge to consider the long-term damage inflicted by Turner’s conviction: limited job opportunities and the requirement to register as a sex offender.
“As I know you are aware, the collateral consequences of a conviction are staggering,” Quinn wrote, saying they go beyond his expulsion from Stanford.
She asked the judge to consider allowing Turner to counsel young men and “warning them about the devastating consequences of a single decision.” She suggested Turner could serve as a mentor.
“There is no doubt Brock made a mistake that night – he made a mistake in drinking excessively to the point where he could not fully appreciate that his female acquaintance was so intoxicated,” Quinn wrote. “I know Brock did not go to that party intending to hurt, or entice, or overpower anyone. That is not his nature. It has never been.”
See, that's the mistake you're making Ms Quinn. He does have it in his nature, because he sexually assaulted an unconscious woman.
Seriously, who walks home pissed of a night, sees an unconscious women slumped behind a dumpster and thinks that this would be a good time and place to have a spot of nookie? Someone who didn't stop until a couple of foreign students pulled him off her.
Not someone who "doesn't have it in his nature" to "overpower someone".
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But are the consequences of each the same? How many rich, white people go to prison simply because they are rich, white people?
How many rich, white people are refused housing and work and so on, because they are rich, white people?
This is what the extra outrage is about.
The little shit got a lesser sentence because he is a rich, white male.
Actually I don't think this is really about white privilege. It is about privilege, period.
If you go looking, there are an uncomfortable number of cases where frat boys at top US universities are found guilty of sexually assaulting, sometimes raping, unconscious women.
In one case the judge handed down a 6 month sentence and said he was utterly outraged that the recommendation was that he give a 10 week sentence.
It isn't just white boys, some of the cases are about privileged black frat boys.
Very clearly, if you are in a position where you have articulate parents and letters of recommendation from fucking former federal prosecutors who happen to be family friends, then the justice system looks at you considerably more favourably than if you are a poor and/or black guy from a poor neighbourhood who is caught doing the same thing.
I don't doubt that exactly the same thing would happen in the UK.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
He also shouldn't receive a sentence that is a fraction of what other young men who differ only in their skin color have rec'd for the exact same crime.
Exact same crime? Honestly, I never heard of this exact crime before. Man finds unconscious woman and lies on her and fingers her. No penis penetration, no weapons, no hitting. I'm not saying it's better or worse than the typical, 'stranger forces woman at gun/knife point rape,' but surely it's different and you can't actually point to scores of examples of young black men doing the "exact same thing" and getting a harsher punishment can you?
The only similar thing I can think of is the Bill Cosby rapes and he deliberately lured women to his apartment, purposely drugged them to make them unconscious, and he did it to many, many women over the years. And so far hasn't been punished at all.
This case seems quite similar, with the exception of the race of the defendant. The black rapist got a mandatory 15-25 years.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
We Americans are benefiting from this helpful video provided by our friends cross-pond.
This is awesome! And it even covers possibilities like wanting tea last week, but not *now*.
I also liked (relevant to this case) that it indicated that the appropriate response to finding someone unconscious is not to "force them to drink tea" but to make sure they are safe. Seriously, no matter how much you've had to drink, what sort of human being doesn't start with that???
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Seriously, no matter how much you've had to drink, what sort of human being doesn't start with that???
The kind of human from a family who has so much privilege and friends in high places that they've bred a young man who never has to take responsibility for his actions so has nothing to hold him back from his most primaeval of urges.
[ 09. June 2016, 14:05: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Nothing other than too much alcohol so he couldn't get it up.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Seriously, no matter how much you've had to drink, what sort of human being doesn't start with that???
The kind of human from a family who has so much privilege and friends in high places that they've bred a young man who never has to take responsibility for his actions so has nothing to hold him back from his most primaeval of urges.
How much responsibility for his actions do you think we're teaching our sons from poor families? I haven't noticed the superior morality and law abiding traits of these young men. How anxious are the men from the poverty class to marry the women who get pregnant with their child? For that matter, I haven't noticed too many young women of any class with a big sense of responsibility or a great awareness that actions have consequences.
How easy to blame this incident on white privilege. Then we don't have to look at ourselves and how we have failed to teach our children so many very important things.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Seriously, no matter how much you've had to drink, what sort of human being doesn't start with that???
The kind of human from a family who has so much privilege and friends in high places that they've bred a young man who never has to take responsibility for his actions so has nothing to hold him back from his most primaeval of urges.
How much responsibility for his actions do you think we're teaching our sons from poor families? I haven't noticed the superior morality and law abiding traits of these young men. How anxious are the men from the poverty class to marry the women who get pregnant with their child? For that matter, I haven't noticed too many young women of any class with a big sense of responsibility or a great awareness that actions have consequences.
How easy to blame this incident on white privilege. Then we don't have to look at ourselves and how we have failed to teach our children so many very important things.
Yes, perhaps "male privilege" is what we should be talking about here, remembering that just as white people will talk about "white privilege" knowing they didn't choose it, but do need to acknowledge it and account for it, so too, men didn't choose male privilege, but do need to acknowledge it and account for it.
But... there is a strong & historical pattern among African American parents to teach their sons at an early age very very strict behavioral rules about how to engage society (particularly the police) in a still very racially charged society. (Poignantly discussed in this "letter to the white parents of my black son's friends").
Because they know that young black men do get unfairly targeted/sentenced, they are extra concerned about their behavior. The horrible side of this, of course, is the realization of how racist our society is, how easy it is for young black men to be unfairly accused and even convicted. At it's best it would teach young black men that their actions have consequences. At it's worst it teaches them that the world it out to get them, and their actions don't matter because the police/society/judicial system will go after them no matter what, so why not fight back against an unjust system.
But the flip side that people are protesting here is the message to young white men like this one-- a similar message that your actions don't matter, only in this case because the society is unjustly stacked in your favor, and influential friends and family will be able to get you off (unfortunate choice of words... ). And that message, too, has real consequences.
Both are horrible outcomes. Both are detrimental to our society. But allowing the one (white privilege/no accountability) does not help the other (learned helplessness/rebellion). Rather, we need to work toward eliminating both thru a more just judicial system that assures that our actions-- even our impulsive alcohol-fueled 20 min. actions-- have real consequences.
[ 09. June 2016, 15:37: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
How much responsibility for his actions do you think we're teaching our sons from poor families? I haven't noticed the superior morality and law abiding traits of these young men. How anxious are the men from the poverty class to marry the women who get pregnant with their child? For that matter, I haven't noticed too many young women of any class with a big sense of responsibility or a great awareness that actions have consequences.
How easy to blame this incident on white privilege. Then we don't have to look at ourselves and how we have failed to teach our children so many very important things.
It was privilege which got him in the situation in the first place.
It was privilege which led his father to address the judge in that way.
It was privilege that meant he had so many people giving character references.
It is privilege that means he thinks he can "educate" others about the dangers of overdrinking
And ultimately it is privilege which means he'll never have to account for his actions.
Meanwhile the lack of privilege elsewhere means that black men languish in prison for the sake of stealing a book.
Yeah, it terribly fucking easy to blame this incident on white privilege. Because white privilege was to blame for it.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
A helpful link from a Canadian campaign: "Don't be that guy".
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I see that his grandparents are concerned that quote:
“Brock is the only person being held accountable for the actions of other irresponsible adults.”
I assume this is victim blaming. Otherwise, what?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Actually I don't think this is really about white privilege. It is about privilege, period.
I disagree. For one statistics show that black men receive significantly higher sentences than white men for the same crimes. Yes, you can find exceptions, but they are just that.
Privilege is a factor as well, rich and connected can be mitigating factors. But an increase in melanin leads to an increase in sentence.
Would this judge have sentence a black athlete from the same school more harshly? I do not know. But the odds are he would.
Posted by Beenster (# 242) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I see that his grandparents are concerned that quote:
“Brock is the only person being held accountable for the actions of other irresponsible adults.”
I assume this is victim blaming. Otherwise, what?
Perhaps blaming the parents for not teaching their son respect and responsiblity, to be a caring young man and not supporting him in the road of being accountable and living with the consequence of his actions. His parents failed him and continue to do so.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Blaming their own daughter then - which seems unlikely.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beenster:
Perhaps blaming the parents for not teaching their son respect and responsiblity, to be a caring young man and not supporting him in the road of being accountable and living with the consequence of his actions. His parents failed him and continue to do so.
I have no idea what the grandmother was getting at, but I really agree with what you've just said. I doubt if this young man was feeling that he had special rights because he was white, rich or male. One person reported that he told him before the party that he was determined to "hook up with someone." In his messed up mind was the idea that "hooking up" was what frat parties were all about and he wasn't going to miss out.
He got very drunk and had not achieved his goal of hooking up. He saw the passed out girl and did something horrible, not because of wealth or color but because nowhere in his conscience was a voice saying how wrong this was, that it was against all codes of decent behavior. If it was there it wasn't as loud as his base desires. This lack of conscience, this lack of a strong sense of right and wrong and where the line is drawn is a failing of parents, schools and churches.
I happen to be reading, "The Secret Scripture," right now and I saw this quote yesterday:
quote:
Those that feed them do not love them,
those that clothe them do not fear for them.
This means something else in the book, but it made me think of these two young people. The boy's parents no doubt provided him with everything money could buy, but didn't love him enough to teach him right from wrong. The girls parents no doubt provided her with all the pretty clothes that money could buy, but failed to keep her safe. We need to fear for our young girls so much more than we actually do. While bending over backward not to victim shame we fail to warn them about things like going to large parties with a bunch of strangers and getting drunk. None of that makes him less guilty and it doesn't make her guilty at all, but the fact remains -- she got raped. She was not kept safe. No one feared for her and they should have.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I doubt if this young man was feeling that he had special rights because he was white, rich or male.
Of course not. No one does. That's the part about "privilege" that often is missed-- the defining element of privilege is that you don't think you're getting special treatment-- you think everyone is getting the same deal you are. That's what privilege means. Privilege does NOT mean that you think you're better or more deserving than blacks/ women/ immigrants/ poor and it's right that you get certain advantages, it's that your limited experience blinds you to the hidden advantages you benefit from. That's not your fault-- we all have blindspots because of our limited perspective-- but it is something we should strive to be aware of and to overcome.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
He got very drunk and had not achieved his goal of hooking up. He saw the passed out girl and did something horrible, not because of wealth or color but because nowhere in his conscience was a voice saying how wrong this was, that it was against all codes of decent behavior. If it was there it wasn't as loud as his base desires. This lack of conscience, this lack of a strong sense of right and wrong and where the line is drawn is a failing of parents, schools and churches.
I think we all agree with this-- although it bears repeating. The fault lies in a moral deficiency in Brock that has nothing to do with his color or his wealth. It may or may not have something to do with his parental upbringing-- we don't know. But it is a moral failing.
But that's not what the outrage is about. He had a huge moral failing-- which was correctly identified by the DA who brought and appropriate charge and the jury who returned a just verdict-- guilty.
The outrage is about the actions of the judge in assigning a sentence that is very much out of proportion with the crime and the norms for this crime. Here is where there is a strong stench of privilege-- in part because of the judge's own statements about how he doesn't want to ruin such a promising future. ALL young people-- rich, poor, black, white, athlete or nerd-- they ALL have a promising future. We can't know what's in the judge's heart, but it certainly looks like white (or athletic) privilege that would cause him to think this one young man's future needed greater preservation than that of his victims or of other young men with similar crimes.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The boy's parents no doubt provided him with everything money could buy, but didn't love him enough to teach him right from wrong. The girls parents no doubt provided her with all the pretty clothes that money could buy, but failed to keep her safe. We need to fear for our young girls so much more than we actually do. While bending over backward not to victim shame we fail to warn them about things like going to large parties with a bunch of strangers and getting drunk. None of that makes him less guilty and it doesn't make her guilty at all, but the fact remains -- she got raped. She was not kept safe. No one feared for her and they should have.
No. Hell no. Her parents didn't mess up by not keeping her safe-- because no woman is safe in a world where a young man can rape an unconscious woman and get away with a slap on the wrist. If anyone messed up it's us as a society for failing to keep her and all women safe.
Sure, she made a poor choice in getting drunk. That doesn't mean her parents didn't warn her about getting drunk-- they probably did. I don't know what % of college-age young people get drunk occasionally, but I'm willing to bet it's north of 75%. And I'm willing to bet the majority of their parents warned them not to. It happens. Because this is the age when young people do stupid things. In fact, all people make mistakes and do stupid things sometimes. A good portion of them get drunk when they're waaay past college age. That's why we as a society have some guardrails-- both literal and figurative-- to minimize the negative consequences when we make a mistake or a stupid choice. Because we all will.
To suggest that her parents are deficient here is just as victim-bashing as saying she is at fault. I suspect they have been as marked by this experience as she was. Again, to correct the letter of Brock's high school friend: rape does not happen because women get drunk-- or wear revealing clothes-- or walk down a dark street. Rape happens because there are rapists. End stop.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Thank you for your thoughtful post Cliffdweller.
It's easier for me to be aware of the sports privilege that happens in our courts, particularly regarding the All Blacks (the NZ national rugby team) because I have little interest in the game, while recognising white privilege has been (and probably still is) more challenging because I have to face ways that I personally am privileged.
The New Zealand national myth of an egalitarian society dies hard.
Huia
[ 09. June 2016, 23:21: Message edited by: Huia ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Rape happens because there are rapists. End stop.
No. Rape happens because there are rapists and the rapists find victims. No man ever committed rape alone.
By insisting that it's wrong to try to keep our daughters from going to frat parties and getting blind drunk -- because you think that would be victim blaming -- you're saying you're ready to sacrifice those girls on the altar of feminist rhetoric.
Prevention is not victim blaming. There's nothing wrong with locking your doors. It's ridiculous to think that saying, "Lock your door," is the same as saying "If you don't lock your door then it's your fault if you get raped."
All across America's college campuses young women are probably repeating speeches like you just made. That doesn't change anything. What they should be doing is refusing to go to frat parties where drunkenness is rampant and sex is going on in every room. It wouldn't take long for things to change. Men don't like parties with no women.
For thousands of years, right up until I was in college, parties for young single people were chaperoned. Now we just throw the young women to the wolves and get outraged and angry when something like this happens. Wouldn't it be better if they didn't get raped in the first place? Don't they deserve a little protection from us, or would that be victim blaming?
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
What they should be doing is refusing to go to frat parties where drunkenness is rampant and sex is going on in every room. . . . For thousands of years . . . parties for young single people were chaperoned. Now we just throw the young women to the wolves and get outraged and angry when something like this happens.
Thank you for finding the courage to say what needed to be said.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Rape happens because there are rapists. End stop.
No. Rape happens because there are rapists and the rapists find victims. No man ever committed rape alone.
By insisting that it's wrong to try to keep our daughters from going to frat parties and getting blind drunk -- because you think that would be victim blaming -- you're saying you're ready to sacrifice those girls on the altar of feminist rhetoric.
Prevention is not victim blaming.
That's a strawman. No one is suggesting prevention is wrong. No one is suggesting that parents, colleges, etc. shouldn't attempt to teach their girls how to avoid rape. And most do. No one-- even the most feminist icon-- would argue with that.
What I objected to was your after-the-fact blaming of the victim's parents-- just a step removed from victim-bashing. You assume because she made a stupid mistake her parents never warned her properly about the dangers of drinking. I suggested you have no idea if that is, in fact, the case. Again, the vast majority of college students drink, occasionally to intoxication, and I'm guessing the majority of their parents have warned them against the dangers. Pretty much every college in American includes this sort of training/education as part of the orientation process.
But again, this is the age when people make stupid mistakes. Actually, every age is, but young adulthood-- when you're first out of the house and under your parents' direct supervision-- is when we make the most. And it's always been that way. It was that way a thousand years ago when you and I went to college it was that way a thousand years earlier when our parents went off to college or work or whatever. It's a developmental life stage.
I went to a conservative Christian college more than 50 years ago with all sorts of rules-- no boys in the girls dorms, no drinking, no dancing, all sorts of rules. We were warned by parents and faculty and advisors. And yet... students drank, sometimes to intoxication. It happens.
No one here is suggesting we don't warn our daughters about all the above. We can, we should, we must. But... they will still make mistakes. They will make stupid choices. And there will be consequences when they do-- that's how we learn. But rape should not be one of those consequences.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
What they should be doing is refusing to go to frat parties where drunkenness is rampant and sex is going on in every room. . . . For thousands of years . . . parties for young single people were chaperoned. Now we just throw the young women to the wolves and get outraged and angry when something like this happens.
Thank you for finding the courage to say what needed to be said.
Actually for thousands of years young single women had little choice in who they would marry (and were fair game if their city was conquered). Yes getting drunk is foolish since there are plenty of non-human dangers (the daughter of a former co-worker of mine fell off a cliff while drunk and suffered permanent brain damage). However it doesn't lessen the guilt of the rapist or thief who takes advantage of the opportunity. Thieves don't get a lesser penalty because their victim was drunk; they don't even get a lesser penalty if they claim the victim promised them the money after they are caught red handed taking bills from the unconscious victim's wallet.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Carry a rape whistle. If you find that you are about to rape someone, blow the whistle until someone comes to stop you.
etc.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
What they should be doing is refusing to go to frat parties where drunkenness is rampant and sex is going on in every room. . . . For thousands of years . . . parties for young single people were chaperoned. Now we just throw the young women to the wolves and get outraged and angry when something like this happens.
Thank you for finding the courage to say what needed to be said.
Replace women with gay men and the beatings and worse they have received whilst drunk or walking alone at night and tell me those who say they should have been more careful are courageous.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Replace women with gay men and the beatings and worse they have received whilst drunk or walking alone at night and tell me those who say they should have been more careful are courageous.
brava brava brava.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
"Brock Turner case fallout: Prospective jurors refuse to serve under judge" (San Jose Mercury-News).
And I also noticed that Vice-President Biden wrote an open letter to the young woman who was raped. I think he published it at Buzzfeed, but there are other articles about it. (Open letter, because her identity is being protected, so he can't write directly.) IIRC, he basically said she's brave, her letter is good, and he's sorry she had to write it.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Prevention is not victim blaming. There's nothing wrong with locking your doors. It's ridiculous to think that saying, "Lock your door," is the same as saying "If you don't lock your door then it's your fault if you get raped."
Context matters. When a house is broken into and someone's priceless family heirloom has been stolen and they have been threatened violently inside their home, we see reporting and sentencing by judges that focuses on the damage done to the victims. We don't see articles opining about the carelessness of the victims in terms of the standard of the door lock, we don't get parents of the criminals saying "it was only 20mins of threatening a family in their own home" and we don't find that commenting on the need for security in the home is a brave and courageous statement that needs to be said.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Rape happens because there are rapists. End stop.
No. Rape happens because there are rapists and the rapists find victims. No man ever committed rape alone.
By insisting that it's wrong to try to keep our daughters from going to frat parties and getting blind drunk -- because you think that would be victim blaming -- you're saying you're ready to sacrifice those girls on the altar of feminist rhetoric.
I also believe there is much too much acceptance of the stupid frat overdrinking behaviour. And over intoxication generally in society.
All sensible parents talk to their daughters about risky behaviours, casual sex and intoxication.
But the thing is here that there is a dramatic difference between someone getting blind drunk and someone raping someone else.
Getting blind drunk and falling behind a dumpster on the way home is stupid behaviour. Utterly and totally stupid. The risks of accident and damage to the person are considerable.
But raping someone who is intoxicated to the point that they're unconscious is some level beyond that. A pissed up frat is a danger to themselves, but that is no excuse for someone else taking advantage of them sexually.
That's like saying truck lorry driver is not fully responsible for deliberately driving over the head of the person lying in the street because the latter is blind drunk.
A focus on the inebriation of the victim is an attempt to take the focus off the fact that some bastard deliberately drove over her head.
quote:
Prevention is not victim blaming. There's nothing wrong with locking your doors. It's ridiculous to think that saying, "Lock your door," is the same as saying "If you don't lock your door then it's your fault if you get raped."
No, clearly there is a lot to be said about young people and alcohol consumption. But that is not effectively done in the context of a helpless woman victim being raped.
Because in that context, it clearly is victim blaming. It suggests that if the woman hadn't been drunk, she wouldn't have been raped. And that in some sense she was "asking for it".
quote:
All across America's college campuses young women are probably repeating speeches like you just made. That doesn't change anything. What they should be doing is refusing to go to frat parties where drunkenness is rampant and sex is going on in every room. It wouldn't take long for things to change. Men don't like parties with no women.
I can't disagree with that.
quote:
For thousands of years, right up until I was in college, parties for young single people were chaperoned. Now we just throw the young women to the wolves and get outraged and angry when something like this happens. Wouldn't it be better if they didn't get raped in the first place? Don't they deserve a little protection from us, or would that be victim blaming?
I can totally disagree with that. Who chaperones the chaperones?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
That link led me on to the full letter from Turner Snr, and to Turner's own letter, in which he is the victim of the violent attack by the Swedish gentlemen.
The victim, presumably, had to listen to that stuff during the trial.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
That link led me on to the full letter from Turner Snr, and to Turner's own letter, in which he is the victi of the violent attack by the Swedish gentlemen.
The victim, presumably, had to listen to that stuff during the trial.
According to the Guardian, he still refuses to acknowledge he did anything wrong.
And that there is what is so messed up about this whole thing.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
link to the full statement.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Wow. That was.. something else.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I just read the transcript of her speech. How the judge--however much of a nostalgic, over-aged, Stanford frat boy he is--how the judge could've issued that sentence after listening to her speech is unfathomable to me. The movement to recall him is absolutely right.
And if he's that attached to Stanford, maybe he should've recused himself from the case, altogether.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
The pastor who wrote a letter to Brock Turner's dad, father to father, has followed it up with the blog post "Rape Should Never Be Viral (Fighting Sexual Assault Beyond What's Trending".
It's a really good piece about the priorities of the media, and how people can stay aware and helpful after the media loses interest. And there are resource links.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
What I objected to was your after-the-fact blaming of the victim's parents-- just a step removed from victim-bashing.
I did not blame her parents or her in any way. In the context of my post I was relating what happened to the poem I had quoted which said we clothe them but don't fear for them and yes, I said they failed to keep her safe. As in we all failed to keep her safe as in young women are being raped at these parties and we and you in particular don't seem to care. All you care about is ranting against the perpetrator for a few more pages.
In your frenzy of hatred toward the perpetrator any attempt I've made to turn the conversation toward preventing this from happening in the future is called victim blaming and stifled.
Nothing I've said about girls getting drunk at parties lessens the guilt of the rapist in any way. You are the ones who make that false connection and I wonder why?
If the thread was about a terrible home invasion and I suggested a really good alarm system would you accuse me of making excuses for the thief?
Keep on whining: "Young people always make mistakes, who will chaperone the chaperones, there have always been rapes, we can tell them but they don't listen." That absolves you from any attempt to protect them and as the rape cases keep rising you can keep on throwing up your hands and shushing anyone with suggestions that might help.
This reminds me of all the young women who get pregnant every year because they thought the man should be in charge of birth control. She's the one whose life will be changed but I guess it's more important to stamp her little foot and make sure he does his share than to plan her children.
Now it's more important that every word of the discussion is aimed at the rapist's and his crime than to talk about lessening the chance of this in the future.
It's time we taught women to take charge of their own bodies. No young single woman should trust anyone but herself when it comes to birth control. No woman should get so drunk in public she can't protect herself. That sentence has nothing to do with how guilty the rapist is, and if you think it does you've made a big leap in false logic. It doesn't lessen his crime and it's not intended to blame the victim for what already happened, it's intended to help keep women from getting raped.
Sorry I don't have a cute cartoon about that.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Would you extend that to "no men should get drunk in public"?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I was quite angered by Turner's statement to the court - and it did make me think that one's view of this event would be influenced by which of these two statements (Turners and the victim's) one read first, because they are quite different.
According to Turner, the victim met him at a party, left with him to return to his flat and in their inebriation decided that it was appropriate to have sex outside. The victim consented on many occasions, he got up because he wanted to puke and met a couple of Swedes, who proceeded to attack him and then was confusingly arrested by the police.
According to the victim, she was at a party, had too much to drink and woke up in hospital with signs of sexual assault.
If one takes the Turner account at face value, this was a couple of people who unwisely had too much to drink and, unwisely, had some form of consensual sexual relations in public, which unfortunately led to a police investigation because unfortunately the woman had some physical evidence which was not easy to explain and uncomfortably the story got into the media and this chain of events has led to a gifted athlete being kicked out of university and his whole life irreversibly changed. All for the sake of 20 minutes of unwise choices after an evening of drinking.
If one then takes looks at the victim, she's got no idea what happened because she has no memory of it. All of her complaint comes down to physical evidence, witness evidence and, to not put too fine a point on it, over emotional rhetoric. She, the victim, was part of this whole set of events - yes, it is unfortunate that it ended up that Turner was still touching her when those Swedes turned up, but they shouldn't have assaulted him and this certainly should not have gone as far as the police and this court.
And it is like the judge has listened to a probation report - which says that Turner hasn't offended before, that the victim isn't looking for "hard time" (she didn't quite say that, she said that Turner's self understanding was more important than the length of sentence) and the letters of support from high-status friends of the family - and has shrugged his shoulders, said to himself "she was pissed and passed out, he was pissed, she doesn't know what happened so can't contradict his account, they were on the way to his flat... and I'm going to get in a whole lot of hot water from my peers if I give anything other than the "white rich boy" pass to this kid."
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Although it's not "he says, she says". There were two Swedes who were witnesses to the end of the evening, who both were clear that the woman was not responding to being touched and was clearly unconscious. One of them even considered it necessary to determine whether she was even alive. Which rather destroys any claim of consent given after they tumbled down the hill - assuming the rest of the story is true.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Although it's not "he says, she says". There were two Swedes who were witnesses to the end of the evening, who both were clear that the woman was not responding to being touched and was clearly unconscious. One of them even considered it necessary to determine whether she was even alive. Which rather destroys any claim of consent given after they tumbled down the hill - assuming the rest of the story is true.
Right. And there was some pretty unpleasant physical evidence.
It seems that this was enough for the jury to convict, but not enough for the judge to take into account when setting the prison time.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
According to her statement, she didn't much feel like going out that night, but her younger sister wanted the company and talked her into it. Her sister is the student - Doe herself is older and graduated a few years ago. She doesn't drink very much these days and misjudged her alcohol intake. It's honestly the kind of mistake anyone could make. Many of us have been there - we didn't eat dinner, or it was hot and we were dehydrated, or that mixed drink had more vodka in it than we realised - and suddenly we're much, much more drunk than we expected to be. In Doe's case, she used to go to parties and drink as a student but hadn't done so since graduation and had completely lost her alcohol tolerance.
Most of us emerge from that experience unscathed except for the hangover. Sometimes a criminal scumbag is around to make a bad night much worse. If your answer to this problem is "become someone who never makes human mistakes" it isn't going to work.
ETA: this is a response to Twilight, but for some reason I failed to quote her. Need moar coffee.
[ 10. June 2016, 12:03: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I love how dishonest people put things in quotes that I neither said nor implied. Of course we all make mistakes and this young woman is not at fault for any mistake in judgement she made just as no young woman is "at fault," for getting drunk. I'm saying that it might help prevent future rapes if we reminded other so far unraped women to be careful how much they drink when they are among drunken strangers.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Would you also remind men to be careful of how much they drink?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
What I objected to was your after-the-fact blaming of the victim's parents-- just a step removed from victim-bashing.
I did not blame her parents or her in any way. .
Here is what you said:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The girls parents no doubt provided her with all the pretty clothes that money could buy, but failed to keep her safe...
I can't conceive of any other way to read that then as blaming the parents for not "keeping her safe".
You went on to talk in more general terms about the responsibility of society in general-- something I explicitly agreed with and others have as well. But what I objected to was your blaming the parents-- something you very clearly did.
It might be helpful if you would specify what sort of "prevention" would be effective. So far you've focused on "not getting drunk at frat parties", which is fine, although not all rapes involve frat parties or alcohol. But how exactly could the parents have prevented this? Again, I'm pretty sure the majority of parents of college-age students have warned them about the dangers of excessive drinking. Working for a university, I know for a fact that pretty much every American college has a number of mandatory orientation or other sessions devoted to the topic, as well as the topic of date rape. And yet, they have been ineffective in stopping young adults from drinking (and were ineffective "a thousand years ago" when you and I were in college).
Your assumption seems to be that "feminism" has prevented parents/colleges/societies from doing enough re prevention, yet again, every college has seminars re date rape, drinking etc. So, what is it you think these particular parents failed to do?
[ 10. June 2016, 12:48: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
These arguments make me uneasy, because we seem to be quite close to telling girls not to wear short skirts, show cleavage, and so on, as men are dirty brutes. I thought we were moving away from this focus on the victim's responsibilities? This characterizes patriarchal attitudes, doesn't it? Women should wear modest clothes, should not drink, and really, should go out accompanied by a chaperone. Hello, Saudi Arabia.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would you extend that to "no men should get drunk in public"?
See this is the sort of flippant, high-five, each other, thing I'm objecting to. I frankly don't care whether the frat boys go to parties and get drunk because the likelihood that they are going to be overpowered and raped is negligible.
Am I the only person who cares about the steep increase in rape incidents on college campuses? Or does all anyone care about clever slogans and "not blaming the victim," and increasing the punishment for the rapist -- which most studies show has very little effect on crime. The average criminal has a low IQ and very high-self-esteem. He doesn't care what the penalty is because he doesn't think he will get caught. As far as I'm concerned repeat offender rapists should be locked up for life, but if you're one of his victims that probably wont make you feel much better. What would make the biggest difference would be not getting raped in the first place.
Go ahead Mousethief, encourage your daughter to go to frat parties, drink as many shots as the boys, get on the table and do a strip tease. Then after she's been raped you can shout to the skies about how none of that meant permission to rape her and the rapist should do twenty five years, etc. It will all be true, but she will still have been raped and that's a whole lot worse than the unfairness of her not being able to (safely) get as shit faced as the boys.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would you extend that to "no men should get drunk in public"?
See this is the sort of flippant, high-five, each other, thing I'm objecting to. I frankly don't care whether the frat boys go to parties and get drunk because the likelihood that they are going to be overpowered and raped is negligible.
So, you are willing to let young men have the (dubious) fun of getting drunk*, but you don't want young women to have the opportunity to do the same?
I don't see anything flippant in my question, and I've no idea where any high-fiving comes in.
You're basically expressing a variation on "don't wear short skirts, off the shoulder dresses, tops revealing a little cleavage". You are wanting women to avoid doing something that they want to do, but not putting any corresponding responsibility on men. Which is a small step from Saudi Arabia, or a small step in a different direction to blaming the victim because her choice of clothing was interpreted as "asking for it". Which has me confused, because I'm pretty certain you don't want either of those.
*dubious because, although I've occasionally had too much to drink, never to the passing out in public stage, I've never actually enjoyed being in that out-of-control state and don't understand why some people seem to like it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
See this is the sort of flippant, high-five, each other, thing I'm objecting to. I frankly don't care whether the frat boys go to parties and get drunk because the likelihood that they are going to be overpowered and raped is negligible.
It isn't altogether flippant because male rape does happen. But even if it didn't, surely there is a higher risk of someone being robbed, mugged, attacked etc whilst very drunk?
quote:
Am I the only person who cares about the steep increase in rape incidents on college campuses?
Err. No.
quote:
Or does all anyone care about clever slogans and "not blaming the victim," and increasing the punishment for the rapist -- which most studies show has very little effect on crime. The average criminal has a low IQ and very high-self-esteem. He doesn't care what the penalty is because he doesn't think he will get caught.
It seems unlikely the IQ aspect is going to be relevant to a young person at university raping another young person. And the "not caring" in this case is due to white privilege.
quote:
As far as I'm concerned repeat offender rapists should be locked up for life, but if you're one of his victims that probably wont make you feel much better. What would make the biggest difference would be not getting raped in the first place.
I'm not sure anyone is disagreeing with you. I'm not sure anyone is even disagreeing with you about the student alcohol issue.
But it still seems undeniable that the main problem here is the attitude of these young men to women.
Would this young man have attacked the woman if she'd been lying in the street unconscious after a road traffic accident? We can't tell, can we. All we know is that this woman is in an existing relationship, shows signs of internal bodily damage, that there were witnesses who had to physically remove him from the prone woman's body (and, apparently, were so upset at what they'd seen that they couldn't speak to police about it at first) and that the man had absolutely no reason whatsoever for his action. None at all.
If he was planning to shag her in his flat as he claimed, why is he doing anything to her behind a dumpster - even if she wasn't out for the count?
The story just doesn't add up.
A more frightening story which fits all the facts is that there is a disgusting misogynist tendency within university frat groups which uses and abuses women and thinks that they're totally immune to the consequences.
It doesn't even bear thinking about what might have happened if these Swedes had not been there.
Yes, serious questions need to be asked about people - all people - who drink themselves to oblivion at these frat parties. But a deeper, more disgusting question is why these rich-boy frat groups think that this is acceptable behaviour.
Both/and not either/or.
quote:
Go ahead Mousethief, encourage your daughter to go to frat parties, drink as many shots as the boys, get on the table and do a strip tease. Then after she's been raped you can shout to the skies about how none of that meant permission to rape her and the rapist should do twenty five years, etc.
You need to calm the hell down and step away from the computer. Nobody here should be talking as if anyone else deliberately puts their daughters in a position where they're likely to be raped.
Get a grip.
quote:
It will all be true, but she will still have been raped and that's a whole lot worse than the unfairness of her not being able to (safely) get as shit faced as the boys.
You've totally lost the plot, pal.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Working for a university, I know for a fact that pretty much every American college has a number of mandatory orientation or other sessions devoted to the topic, as well as the topic of date rape.Your assumption seems to be that "feminism" has prevented parents/colleges/societies from doing enough re prevention, yet again, every college has seminars re date rape, drinking etc. So, what is it you think these particular parents failed to do?
I already explained that the "failed to keep them safe," as best I could. I meant it as a failure of all of us, her parents just being one example, representing us all.
You know why the seminars have probably been ineffective in reducing rape on college campuses? They probably, like you, put all the emphasis on what the boy is not allowed to do. "No mean no," etc. That's fine and should be included but most of the emphasis should be away from the boy, who she can't control, and toward what she can do herself to keep safe.
I don't blame all feminism, just the new wave that has come full circle from the feminism I believed in when I was a member of NOW in the 70's. We were focused on equal rights in the work place, and we spent a lot of our time saying that women should be in control of our own bodies. We shouldn't be fired just because we got pregnant. We shouldn't have to get our husbands' consent to get our tubes tied and we shouldn't have to be married to get the pill and we should be able to do any job we wanted to do, be it factory work or engineering. It's the new wave that has turned away from women's ability to control their own destiny and encouraged them to blame all their problems on men. (I am not speaking of rape here so don't use that in your strawman arsenal.) We have encouraged young women to think that the strongest feminist is the one who acts most like a redneck man, complete with cussing, drinking and unlimited sex, and not the one who acts most like an intelligent, wise woman.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
OK, you know what, I'm done here.
Even for this board, this conversation is puke layered upon puke.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would you extend that to "no men should get drunk in public"?
See this is the sort of flippant, high-five, each other, thing I'm objecting to. I frankly don't care whether the frat boys go to parties and get drunk because the likelihood that they are going to be overpowered and raped is negligible.
So, you are willing to let young men have the (dubious) fun of getting drunk*, but you don't want young women to have the opportunity to do the same?
I don't see anything flippant in my question, and I've no idea where any high-fiving comes in.
You're basically expressing a variation on "don't wear short skirts, off the shoulder dresses, tops revealing a little cleavage". You are wanting women to avoid doing something that they want to do, but not putting any corresponding responsibility on men. Which is a small step from Saudi Arabia, or a small step in a different direction to blaming the victim because her choice of clothing was interpreted as "asking for it". Which has me confused, because I'm pretty certain you don't want either of those.
*dubious because, although I've occasionally had too much to drink, never to the passing out in public stage, I've never actually enjoyed being in that out-of-control state and don't understand why some people seem to like it.
Sorry I confused you with Mousethief above.
No. Recommending that women don't get blind drunk around a group of drunken horny college boys is not Saudi Arabia and rape charges are not "no corresponding responsibility," for the men. If the men were in danger of getting raped I might recommend they not get drunk either but they aren't. Why not tell your kids to walk down the centerline of the highway if that's something they want to do? It will be the driver's fault if they get hit. Any mention that they shouldn't have been walking on the line will just be victim blaming and Saudi Arabia will be knocking on our doors.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I already explained that the "failed to keep them safe," as best I could. I meant it as a failure of all of us, her parents just being one example, representing us all.
You went on to talk in general about what we can all do-- and I agreed with you, explicitly, that we all have a responsibility to keep our young (and old) women safe. But you quite clearly began by explicitly blaming these parents, w/o knowing a single thing about them or what they did/did not do.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Working for a university, I know for a fact that pretty much every American college has a number of mandatory orientation or other sessions devoted to the topic, as well as the topic of date rape.Your assumption seems to be that "feminism" has prevented parents/colleges/societies from doing enough re prevention, yet again, every college has seminars re date rape, drinking etc. So, what is it you think these particular parents failed to do?
You know why the seminars have probably been ineffective in reducing rape on college campuses? They probably, like you, put all the emphasis on what the boy is not allowed to do. "No mean no," etc. That's fine and should be included but most of the emphasis should be away from the boy, who she can't control, and toward what she can do herself to keep safe.
well, then, you would be wrong.
Again, I work at a university, I'm familiar with what the seminars entail, and no, they do include all sorts of preventative information-- including not getting drunk at frat parties. Something, again, most parents tell their girls as well.
Further, this is not just something that happens now and not "a thousand years ago" when you & I were in college and women were "chaperoned". It happened then-- a lot. The difference then was that victim shaming prevented a large percentage of rape victims from speaking out (I served on a jury for a rape trial more than 30 years ago and saw this first hand). A judgmental and puritanical society kept us from talking about the problem and prevention. I appreciate the advances that "feminism" has made in brining the topic out in the open so that someone like Emily Doe can talk honestly and openly about her experience in a way that will benefit all young women.
There may be more that we can do re prevention. God, I hope so. But just saying "don't get drunk" doesn't seem to cover it.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Go ahead Mousethief, encourage your daughter to go to frat parties, drink as many shots as the boys, get on the table and do a strip tease. Then after she's been raped you can shout to the skies about how none of that meant permission to rape her and the rapist should do twenty five years, etc.
You need to calm the hell down and step away from the computer. Nobody here should be talking as if anyone else deliberately puts their daughters in a position where they're likely to be raped.
Get a grip.
Er right, sorry. As I said I meant to say Alan who I had quoted, not Mousethief. I don't think Alan actually has any college age daughters so it wasn't mean to be specific just hypothetical.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
Strange. I attended many a frat party in my college days. Had more than a few sometimes, was around women, who themselves had imbibed more than a bit.
Number of women I ended up raping: 0.
Somehow, being in that same situation didn't magically make me evil. Somehow, it seems like it's possible for red-blooded hetrodudebros like me to keep our hands, eyes, and thoughts to ourselves, even after a couplefew.
But, if I put myself in a headspace I don't much enjoy and ponder some counterfactuals...no, I really don't see how "what she was wearing" is going to stop or slow down someone acting with malice in their hearts. "She was asking for it, the slut" can be twisted so many ways, used to justify so many things. What counts as "modest" or "clearly asking for it" is up for interpretation, and, in the mind of any criminal, that interpretation will never work out in their victim's favor.
And if you really think having a few adult chaperones or supervision of legal adults is going to do jack fucking shit, or that it indeed ever likely did in the eight hundred and fifty year history of the Western university—you're a funny little ducky, aren't you? Seriously, go read the Carmina Burana, with its tales of farmers' daughters meeting wandering students. Why, isn't the trope of sneaking out after curfew a staple of every story that involves a boarding school or college? Human society will always find a way to censor some good things, and excuse many evil ones, thanks to humanity's radical tendency to evil. No amount of supervision, modest dress, or forced repression will ever cure that; only a refusal to condone privilege, to no longer excuse immoral and heinous actions, and to make it clear that human beings are to be treated as ends unto themselves and never means to one's own selfish ends can even begin to make things right.
As a whitecisgenderedhetrodudebro, I've been told all my life—usually in relation to some girl or someone I've hacked off—that I'm not responsible for someone else's feelings. Why should women be responsible for my actions?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
They probably, like you, put all the emphasis on what the boy is not allowed to do. "No mean no," etc. That's fine and should be included but most of the emphasis should be away from the boy, who she can't control, and toward what she can do herself to keep safe.
The entire responsibility for a crime is the perpetrator, not the victim. The focus on the perpetrator in spots like the tea vid and the slogan "no means no' is that perpetrators have failed to understand or respect what constitutes consent. It is meant to educate potential perpetrators, not ignore caution for potential victims.
The judge's focus on the rapist's future shows that there is far to go in this.
[ 10. June 2016, 14:00: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The average criminal has a low IQ and very high-self-esteem. He doesn't care what the penalty is because he doesn't think he will get caught
Holy f'n crosspost, Batman.
This here's the embodiment of the privilege and stereotyping this whole kerfuffle is about. See, criminals aren't supposed to be smart. They're not supposed to be Nice Young Men With Futures That Everybody Likes. They're thugs. Not like us. Not from good families, not going to good colleges, not bound for great things. A Stanford swimmer who loved red meat and junk food? Oh, he's a good boy, just like my son, just like me back in the day. The young Black or Brown man from across the river, born into poverty, doesn't speak lawyer's English? Thug. Lock him up.
Criminals aren't supposed to be like us. We don't recognize evil when it looks at us from the mirror. The Criminal Element is dumb. White collar crime doesn't happen, or doesn't matter, or gets you bailed out by the government, run by people who look a lot like the criminals. White privilege, class privilege, those have no effect on arrests, perception, or sentencing, right? I mean, just because I can go out, smoke some weed, spray paint some stencil graffiti, and run a couple red lights and not worry about getting arrested thanks to my class, gender, and skin color—well, that's all incidental, isn't it? Criminals are stupid sociopaths. I'm smart and humble. I'm no criminal. Can't be a criminal.
Six months to keep from ruining my bright future? Even that's too harsh.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
sadly, all too well said, Ariston
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I don't think Alan actually has any college age daughters so it wasn't mean to be specific just hypothetical.
It's a few years yet. But, I hope that by the time my son and daughter are college age that I would have raised them well enough for them to be able to enjoy themselves having a few drinks without overdoing it, that they would know that binging is dangerous and like walking down the centre line of a major road not a good idea. I'd hope that they know how to be safe, sensible, and still have fun. That they will know to respect others, to protect anyone needing help, to trust and not abuse trust. Basically to be decent, good and sensible individuals. I've no doubt they will make mistakes, I hope they will know how to learn from their mistakes. I have no illusions that instilling such values in our children is a long term commitment to being a good father, in cooperation with others. It can't be achieved by a lecture series at the start of their time at university. I would expect that my advice to both of them would be more or less the same - study hard, do your best, make friends, have fun.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The average criminal has a low IQ and very high-self-esteem. He doesn't care what the penalty is because he doesn't think he will get caught
Holy f'n crosspost, Batman.
This here's the embodiment of the privilege and stereotyping this whole kerfuffle is about. See, criminals aren't supposed to be smart. They're not supposed to be Nice Young Men With Futures That Everybody Likes. They're thugs. Not like us. Not from good families, not going to good colleges, not bound for great things. A Stanford swimmer who loved red meat and junk food? Oh, he's a good boy, just like my son, just like me back in the day. The young Black or Brown man from across the river, born into poverty, doesn't speak lawyer's English? Thug. Lock him up.
Criminals aren't supposed to be like us. We don't recognize evil when it looks at us from the mirror. The Criminal Element is dumb. White collar crime doesn't happen, or doesn't matter, or gets you bailed out by the government, run by people who look a lot like the criminals. White privilege, class privilege, those have no effect on arrests, perception, or sentencing, right? I mean, just because I can go out, smoke some weed, spray paint some stencil graffiti, and run a couple red lights and not worry about getting arrested thanks to my class, gender, and skin color—well, that's all incidental, isn't it? Criminals are stupid sociopaths. I'm smart and humble. I'm no criminal. Can't be a criminal.
Six months to keep from ruining my bright future? Even that's too harsh.
Your two posts oh this page have so little to do with anything I have actually said that I would have no idea they were directed at me if not for the quote at the top. I was talking about the suggestion that harsher penalties might reduce rape incidents (not talking about the Stanford rape case at all) and I mentioned two known facts about typical criminals. They have lower than average IQ's and higher than average self esteem. Those are facts, not my opinion.
If you read those facts and thought I was talking about minorities, or "thugs," then you are projecting your own prejudice on me. That post that you just spewed after reading the words "low IQ," is some nasty racial bias of your own. Just like all the stuff about what women are wearing and slutty behavior that you said in your first post is what is in your mind, not mine. Even though you lied by putting those things in quotes I have not said one word about how young women dress. My whole thing has been about the danger of girls drinking to the point of not being able to defend themselves. Again your ugly mind is projecting itself against me. Slut is your word, I never use it, just as I never use the word thug.
In case you haven't read the thread, and I don't think you have, we have moved past talking about the Stanford rape and are talking about the problem of rape in general. You'll have to work harder to bring race into that or you can just brag about your fine behavior at parties a little more.
Of course Cliffdweller thinks you're brilliant.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
In case you haven't read the thread, and I don't think you have, we have moved past talking about the Stanford rape and are talking about the problem of rape in general. You'll have to work harder to bring race into that or you can just brag about your fine behavior at parties a little more.
Really? I thought this thread had become, ahem, the Twilight Zone.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I frankly don't care whether the frat boys go to parties and get drunk because the likelihood that they are going to be overpowered and raped is negligible.
Wouldn't it be advisable to care if there is a greater than negligible likelihood that some of the drunken frat boys may rape someone, and thus ruin their futures?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Of course Cliffdweller thinks you're brilliant.
Thank you.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I frankly don't care whether the frat boys go to parties and get drunk because the likelihood that they are going to be overpowered and raped is negligible.
Wouldn't it be advisable to care if there is a greater than negligible likelihood that some of the drunken frat boys may rape someone, and thus ruin their futures?
We'll of course that's true and drunken young men have a much greater chance of doing something to cause their own death like fall off balconies or get in car crashes but I didn't dare mention anything like that for fear someone would claim that meant I was sympathetic to the Stanford rapist.
By the way, I think he fits the mold of low IQ and high self esteem perfectly. He thought he was oh so clever and would get away with his crime by dragging his victim out of sight of the house, but he was too stupid to notice that now he was in full view of the walking path.
I knew lots of low IQ people in college, particularly among the athletic scholarship crowd. Ariston wouldn't have thought of this though being the sort of sub-conscious racist who thinks all white college boys must be smart and all low IQ people must be African American.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I had to look it up and turns out twilight is correct-- average inmate has lower IQ than population at large and rapists reportedly lower than other felons. Some interesting theories re why.
However a Stanford student is not going to have a below average IQ. Which may go to help explain the strong stench of privilege in the judges statement / sentence. In addition to racial, economic or athletic elitism, intellectual elitism is a possible explanation. As well as a reminder that "smart" does not equal either wise or moral. And to Twilights point I would respond that I know many below average IQ youth who are still able to understand consent, consequences, and why rape is wrong
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Twilight--
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Go ahead Mousethief, encourage your daughter to go to frat parties, drink as many shots as the boys, get on the table and do a strip tease. Then after she's been raped you can shout to the skies about how none of that meant permission to rape her and the rapist should do twenty five years, etc.
You need to calm the hell down and step away from the computer. Nobody here should be talking as if anyone else deliberately puts their daughters in a position where they're likely to be raped.
Get a grip.
Er right, sorry. As I said I meant to say Alan who I had quoted, not Mousethief. I don't think Alan actually has any college age daughters so it wasn't mean to be specific just hypothetical.
Whoever you meant, it's still a vile thing to say.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And to Twilights point I would respond that I know many below average IQ youth who are still able to understand consent, consequences, and why rape is wrong
Let me try to make this simple enough that you can't twist it into something else entirely.
LilBuddha had suggested that stronger sentences might serve as a deterrent to rapists. I thought that sounded like a good suggestion but I remembered from debates about the death penalty, that studies have shown very little correlation between the penalty for a crime and the amount of people who commit it. It is believed by those who are experts in the subject that most criminals don't know what the punishment for their crime is (low IQ) and don't really care what it is because they think they're too clever to get caught(high self-esteem.)
At no point at all did I imply in any way that the low IQ a criminal may or may not have should excuse what they did.
This is what infuriates me. The way you just make stuff up. You're beginning to sound like a straight up liar.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
[/qb]Originally posted by Golden Key:
Whoever you meant, it's still a vile thing to say. [/QB]
Well since you're casting judgement I hope you'll consider that before I said that to Alan he had said this to me: quote:
You're basically expressing a variation on "don't wear short skirts, off the shoulder dresses, tops revealing a little cleavage". You are wanting women to avoid doing something that they want to do, but not putting any corresponding responsibility on men. Which is a small step from Saudi Arabia, or a small step in a different direction to blaming the victim because her choice of clothing was interpreted as "asking for it". Which has me confused, because I'm pretty certain you don't want either of those.
I thought that was sort of vile. being compared to the Taliban when I hadn't said one single word about the way young women do or don't dress or suggested for one minute that I thought any young women in any condition or state of dress were "asking for it."
My point through this entire thread has been about trying to keep women safe from rape and that's why I felt like I needed to spell out a possible tragic scenario to make parents stop and think that maybe the safety of our young women was more important than whether or not we're being 100% fair in our boy/girl party expectations.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Twilight--
But you spelled it out with an example of an actual Shipmate and family. *That's* what I thought was vile.
I think there are some communication problems, because what you say comes across to many of us very differently from what you say you mean, and vice versa. I don't think anyone is intentionally lying about what you said.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Why is it that none of the suggestions for keeping women safe are directed at the men who attack them? Men are vastly more violent and criminal than any other gender or sex. The best way to keep women safe - and lots of other men too, and prevent all sorts of other crimes - would be to have curfews and restrictions for MEN. When is someone going to tell MEN to just stop raping? It doesn't take much effort to NOT rape.
And if it isn't fair or legal to restrict all men because of the actions of a few men, why the fuck do we to tell all women to restrict themselves because of the actions of a few men?
Fuck that shit. Fuck the courts. If there's no justice for women, there's always revenge.
Gee D, here's some more detail on the legalese:
Stanford University sexual assault case sentencing seen as too lenient by legal experts
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... I frankly don't care whether the frat boys go to parties and get drunk because the likelihood that they are going to be overpowered and raped is negligible. ...
Yeah, well, maybe you should care, because frat boys go to parties and get drunk and rape OTHER PEOPLE. Fuck, you're dumb. You don't care that men get drunk and commit crimes, because it's up to the rest of us to avoid them. What do you tell someone who gets hit by a drunk driver? Surely you must have noticed that MADD didn't suggest we should all dodge drunk drivers; instead, they fought to have drunk drivers treated like the criminals they are. You're a fucking moron and you're arguing for rape culture because you stupidly think it makes you a rebel against the zeitgeist. Next you'll tell us that if there were no women on the planet, we wouldn't have all these rapes. Moron.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Strange. I attended many a frat party in my college days. Had more than a few sometimes, was around women, who themselves had imbibed more than a bit.
Number of women I ended up raping: 0. ...
FTW.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
BTW the training that all frosh of Turner's year included:
quote:
All incoming undergraduates were required to take new online training this summer focused on healthy relationships, sexual assault, affirmative consent, bystander intervention and related issues. That training was supplemented by in-person presentations and discussions during New Student Orientation last week.
2014 info
It btw included a video by student athletes emphasizing consent and bystander intervention
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
LilBuddha had suggested that stronger sentences might serve as a deterrent to rapists. I thought that sounded like a good suggestion but I remembered from debates about the death penalty, that studies have shown very little correlation between the penalty for a crime and the amount of people who commit it. It is believed by those who are experts in the subject that most criminals don't know what the punishment for their crime is (low IQ) and don't really care what it is because they think they're too clever to get caught(high self-esteem.)
But none of that has anything to do with this case or others like it.
Sentences like this undermine every message about personal responsibility that we have been attempting to impart. It undermines the value of women we have been struggling to build.
There will always be some inequity in any system, this case says they are not even trying to pretend there isn't.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Yeah, but weirdly him saying that is racist.
I can't even get my mind around what she said to Alan. All I can do at the moment is point to Soror Magnum's excellent post. Cheesy is right, this is sick making.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Sorry, my last was in response to this: quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Strange. I attended many a frat party in my college days. Had more than a few sometimes, was around women, who themselves had imbibed more than a bit.
Number of women I ended up raping: 0. ...
FTW.
Massive crosspost collision.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And to Twilights point I would respond that I know many below average IQ youth who are still able to understand consent, consequences, and why rape is wrong
Let me try to make this simple enough that you can't twist it into something else entirely.
LilBuddha had suggested that stronger sentences might serve as a deterrent to rapists. I thought that sounded like a good suggestion but I remembered from debates about the death penalty, that studies have shown very little correlation between the penalty for a crime and the amount of people who commit it. It is believed by those who are experts in the subject that most criminals don't know what the punishment for their crime is (low IQ) and don't really care what it is because they think they're too clever to get caught(high self-esteem.)
At no point at all did I imply in any way that the low IQ a criminal may or may not have should excuse what they did.
This is what infuriates me. The way you just make stuff up. You're beginning to sound like a straight up liar.
uh huh. Nothing in what I said in the quote above or the fuller post is contrary to that. In fact, I stated the post by saying "I looked it up, and turns out Twilight is right."
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Thank you Soror Magna. None of the links I had found said that there was an absolute minimum sentence.
This is not an apology for Turner, but there must be an enormous range of sentences available. We are told above that frat boys go to parties such as this with a view to hooking up ( a term new to us, but meaning clear). I doubt that all the girls going to these parties are there to exchange recipes for sponge cakes. What if John and Jane meet one evening, find each other's company enjoyable and go the the bedroom to find out just how much they enjoy it. No-one has spiked anyone's drinks. They like it so much that Jane helps John put the condom on as he's drunk a lot and is fumbling a bit. Just as he's about to enter her, she passes out from all the alcohol she's had and her recent exertions. Because she's unconscious, any previous consent she's given must go, but John decides to proceed any rate. John tells accurately enough what has happened. Is 6 months then too lenient?
That's one extreme of course. Towards the other is a man who does spike a girl's drinks, talks about all sorts of other things, and when she's unconscious rapes her. Depending on his record etc, whether he's pleaded guilty or not, the sentencing range here would start at about 6 years before becoming eligible for parole, with an additional term of 1 year 6 months. In other words a sentence of up to the possibility of 7 yrs 6 months in gaol.
Where does Turner's case fit between these examples?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Thank you Soror Magna. None of the links I had found said that there was an absolute minimum sentence.
This is not an apology for Turner, but there must be an enormous range of sentences available. We are told above that frat boys go to parties such as this with a view to hooking up ( a term new to us, but meaning clear). I doubt that all the girls going to these parties are there to exchange recipes for sponge cakes. What if John and Jane meet one evening, find each other's company enjoyable and go the the bedroom to find out just how much they enjoy it. No-one has spiked anyone's drinks. They like it so much that Jane helps John put the condom on as he's drunk a lot and is fumbling a bit. Just as he's about to enter her, she passes out from all the alcohol she's had and her recent exertions. Because she's unconscious, any previous consent she's given must go, but John decides to proceed any rate. John tells accurately enough what has happened. Is 6 months then too lenient?
That's one extreme of course. Towards the other is a man who does spike a girl's drinks, talks about all sorts of other things, and when she's unconscious rapes her. Depending on his record etc, whether he's pleaded guilty or not, the sentencing range here would start at about 6 years before becoming eligible for parole, with an additional term of 1 year 6 months. In other words a sentence of up to the possibility of 7 yrs 6 months in gaol.
Where does Turner's case fit between these examples?
Judging by the injuries to Emily Doe, I'd say much closer to the 2nd scenario than the 1st. One of the courageous Swedes was so upset by what he saw he could barely control his sobbing when giving the report to the police.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Gee D--
Somewhere around the middle, I think.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
but John decides to proceed any rate. John tells accurately enough what has happened. Is 6 months then too lenient?
Yes. If someone wishes sex without an active and willing partner, they can masturbate.
As soon as the ability to consent is no longer present, consensual sex is also no longer present. Your scenario is why the minimum exists, there is no purpose in less than the minimum.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well done, Soror Magna. There is always this cry, that women should do this or not do this, to prevent rape. Quite bizarre, as if they actually cause it. Patriarchy is not dead, by a long way, but the outcry against this judge gives hope.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But it still seems undeniable that the main problem here is the attitude of these young men to women.
Yes. This.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Go ahead Mousethief, encourage your daughter to go to frat parties, drink as many shots as the boys, get on the table and do a strip tease. Then after she's been raped you can shout to the skies about how none of that meant permission to rape her and the rapist should do twenty five years, etc. It will all be true, but she will still have been raped and that's a whole lot worse than the unfairness of her not being able to (safely) get as shit faced as the boys.
I had missed this. Thanks, cheesy, for singling this out.
Twilight: You are a despicable excuse for a human being. Your presence on the planet is a blight for which God should be held personally responsible. All good human beings should become queasy at the sight of your name, knowing that you would post something like this. In any decent society you would never be invited to another event again. Do not ever mention my daughters again, you pustule on the anus of the world.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Mousethief,
As I already said above, using your name was a mistake, I was responding to a post by Alan where he accused me of being the same as the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and put a lot of words in my mouth about how women dress, etc. I was angry but I still wouldn't have said it if I had thought he had teen daughters.
My point through this entire thread has been that rape is terrible, this boy deserved to be found guilty as all rapists do and that he deserved a harsher sentence, but that keeping our daughters safe was our first concern, more important even than doing what's fair when it comes to drinking at parties. The post was meant as a "how would you feel if?" hypothetical. Just as a mother from MADD might say, "Think how you would feel if you let your daughter go out with a young man and he got drunk and she died in a car wreck-- tell her not to get in cars with drunk boys!" That wouldn't be saying the boy wasn't responsible for the wreck, it would be a plea to keep the girl alive.
Soror Magna has accused me of "arguing for rape culture:" Here are some words of mine on this thread I have cut and pasted exactly as written:
I think he should have received at least 3-4 years.
He assaulted a defenseless woman, so he should be given a sentence that is on the scale for similar crimes.
He saw the passed out girl and did something horrible, not because of wealth or color but because nowhere in his conscience was a voice
saying how wrong this was, that it was against all codes of decent behavior. If it was there it wasn't as loud as his base desires.
You may not like my ideas for keeping young women safe. I admit they are old-fashioned and paternalistic, I get horrified at the thought of rape and am willing to be old fashioned and paternalistic if it saves some girls, but saying that I am for rape is something I would call vile.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Mousethief,
As I already said above, using your name was a mistake,
I must have missed your apology. As I do still.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
"Think how you would feel if you let your daughter go out with a young man and he got drunk and she died in a car wreck-- tell her not to get in cars with drunk boys!"
I'm very sorry to hear you're making an analogy of drink-driving as a stand-in for rape. Life must very confusing for you.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Mousethief,
As I already said above, using your name was a mistake, I was responding to a post by Alan where he accused me of being the same as the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and put a lot of words in my mouth about how women dress, etc. I was angry but I still wouldn't have said it if I had thought he had teen daughters.
The thing you're failing to appreciate is that it is a horrible thing to say about any of your colleagues on this board, however angry you are.
It wouldn't matter if you were talking to Alan, to Mousethief or to me. Indeed, by saying this shit to any of us, you're saying it to me.
You are making some claim, based on nothing at all, about how I'm bringing up my daughter, and you are saying that I'd deliberately put her in danger of rape.
If it was down to me, you'd be drummed off this board. Shame on you.
[ 11. June 2016, 13:15: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
"Think how you would feel if you let your daughter go out with a young man and he got drunk and she died in a car wreck-- tell her not to get in cars with drunk boys!"
I'm very sorry to hear you're making an analogy of drink-driving as a stand-in for rape. Life must very confusing for you.
Well I never would have made the connection myself but it I was responding to Soror Magna who had said this: quote:
What do you tell someone who gets hit by a drunk driver? Surely you must have noticed that MADD didn't suggest we should all dodge drunk drivers; instead, they fought to have drunk drivers treated like the criminals they are. You're a fucking moron and you're arguing for rape culture because you stupidly think it makes you a rebel against the zeitgeist. Next you'll tell us that if there were no women on the planet, we wouldn't have all these rapes. Moron.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Mousethief,
As I already said above, using your name was a mistake,
I must have missed your apology. As I do still.
There was this quote:
Sorry, I confused your name with Mousethiefs.
And this: quote:
Er right, sorry. As I said I meant to say Alan who I had quoted, not Mousethief.
Admittedly not a lot of groveling, just a simple "sorry," but I might ask you to remember in the midst of your great outrage over mistaking your name while talking about daughters, that you have in the past, many times, deliberately made fun of my son and his schizophrenia.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Admittedly not a lot of groveling, just a simple "sorry," but I might ask you to remember in the midst of your great outrage over mistaking your name while talking about daughters, that you have in the past, many times, deliberately made fun of my son and his schizophrenia.
I think you're totally delusional.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Twilight,
I am not joining the dogpile of condemnation of your character. However I do think you have, at best, stated your case poorly. And, if I am completely frank, I think much of it misguided. I will try once more before abandoning hope.
1. The strong focus on assigning responsibility to the perpetrator of a crime is right in the case of rape. It is never OK or justified or in any way ameliorated.
2. Everyone should make responsible decisions about their own safety and good parents/guardians will do their best to impart this.
3. Despite all the best guidance and intent, people will fuck up. Good children from good homes will do stupid things. But you know what? It doesn't matter. No matter how a person is raised, no matter how many risks they take being raped because of it is not anyone's fault but the rapist's.
4. Educating people on what constitutes rape, like the tea video, and emphasising the responsibility of the perpetrator is part and parcel of the defencive strategy you are seeming to promote, not counter to it.
ETA: Points 1 & 2 are not halves of an equation.
Rape is always 100% the perpetrators responsibility.
[ 11. June 2016, 14:23: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I agree with everything you just said Lilbuddha, so if I have seemed not to then I truly have done a bad job of communicating here.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Er right, sorry. As I said I meant to say Alan who I had quoted, not Mousethief.
That was not directed to me. And it was an apology for a name mistake, not for the hideous content of your post. Which as cheesy said is a horrid thing to say to any father.
quote:
Admittedly not a lot of groveling, just a simple "sorry," but I might ask you to remember in the midst of your great outrage over mistaking your name while talking about daughters, that you have in the past, many times, deliberately made fun of my son and his schizophrenia.
And I apologized profusely and swore to amend my ways, and did. May I ask you to remember this? Not much point, apparently. You really are a waste of carbon.
[ 11. June 2016, 15:06: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I agree with everything you just said Lilbuddha, so if I have seemed not to then I truly have done a bad job of communicating here.
First sensible thing you've posted. And your bad communicating includes the inability to read as well. I wrote, "hit by a drunk driver"; you changed that to getting into a car driven by a drunk driver. I wrote that you were "arguing for rape culture" and you changed that to me saying you were for rape. And yet you claim here and on other threads that other posters misrepresent or distort what you wrote. Project much? And since you think we're being mean about your son's schizophrenia - news to me - I'll say that the voices in his head probably make a hell of a lot more sense than you do.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And I apologized profusely and swore to amend my ways, and did. May I ask you to remember this? Not much point, apparently. You really are a waste of carbon.
I don't remember a profuse apology. I remember a host giving you a specific warning about it and that you stopped. I once thanked you for that.
It doesn't change the fact that your reaction to my post reeked with pearl clutching shock that anyone should ever mention a person's child and it was a little rich coming from you. What's more mine was a hypothetical case. I was not talking about anyone's specific son or daughter that I knew something about as you were then and as Soror Magna is now.
[ 11. June 2016, 17:48: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And I apologized profusely and swore to amend my ways, and did. May I ask you to remember this? Not much point, apparently. You really are a waste of carbon.
I don't remember a profuse apology. I remember a host giving you a specific warning about it and that you stopped.
Then you have a very selective memory.
quote:
I once thanked you for that.
But still want to use it as a club.
quote:
It doesn't change the fact that your reaction to my post reeked with pearl clutching shock that anyone should ever mention a person's child and it was a little rich coming from you.
You really don't get people, do you? It's not that you mentioned (as I thought) my children. It's what you said about them. Write for meaning, for God's sake.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I agree with everything you just said Lilbuddha, so if I have seemed not to then I truly have done a bad job of communicating here.
Yeah I think we may have mentioned this a couple dozen times. But again your big problem is slowing down enough to read non-defensively. What lilBuddha wrote was a well written and concise summary of what I and others have been saying all along.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
I once thanked you for that.
But still want to use it as a club.
You really don't get people, do you? It's not that you mentioned (as I thought) my children. It's what you said about them. Write for meaning, for God's sake.
I didn't say anything "about," anyone's daughter, I said go ahead and encourage your daughters to do X and think how you'll feel if something terrible happens. It was a warning not an insult toward anyone.
I'm also not mentioning your past as a club but pointing out the irony of someone who spent years following me around making jabs about my son, now going into a huge hissy fit and telling me I don't belong on the earth and should never be invited to any event, yadayada as though the thing I did once wasn't something you had done about a hundred times. It was too much hypocrisy to let pass.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I have never followed you anywhere, nor would I. Get over yourself.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
A guy with 60,000 posts only seems like he's always on your tail. It's an illusion brought on by sheer quantity.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Savoir Faire is everywhere.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
And sensitivity. We will naturally magnify threats we perceive towards that which we care most deeply.
Though it is likely hypocritical of me to say this, I think people are seeing through their anger rather than using reason.
Not peacemaking, I am in a don't give a shit mood, everyone can go fuck themselves for all I care at the moment.
Just an observation.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think people are seeing through their anger rather than using reason.
And talking at cross purposes, I think.
Everyone, including women, should be free to wear what they want, drink what they want, walk where they want, without having to fear being raped. When someone is raped, it's the rapist's fault, not the victim's.
But we aren't all free in those ways. Rape is the fault of the rapist, but I'd just as soon not be a victim of that crime or any other, and if I think I need to do things to protect myself, I do them. I don't walk around dangerous neighborhoods by myself at night. I lock my doors. I don't let people in the front gate at work if something seems off about them.
The summer after my sophomore year in college I briefly worked for the county picking up trash on the side of rural roads. They took us in pick-up trucks out to the middle of nowhere and picked us up hours later. One of my co-workers was a guy I went to high school with, and when I told my parents that he was on this crew and that he'd asked me for a ride home, my father made me quit the job. He didn't give much of an explantion, but I took it that he didn't want me miles outside of town with this guy, whose only offense as far as I knew was being slow and weird.
I don't know if I was in any danger. Maybe my dad knew something about this guy that I didn't. But I don't think he was contributing to rape culture by doing something he thought would protect me.
Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
In case you haven't read the thread, and I don't think you have...
Le Sigh. In case you didn't read what I wrote—and I really don't think you have—I think the point that you bloody well missed, or maybe wasn't banged through your skull with a pile driver, is that people like me get a pass for our bad behavior, while The Other gets typecast, loaded down with dog whistle imprecations, locked up, and the keys thrown away. What other conclusion am I supposed to draw from, say, comments from political leaders in the wake of Black Lives Matter and police shootings, or the current election, or the massive prison problem we have here in the Carceral States of America?
Or are you just out to handwave and cook up a few spurious accusations to cover your backside?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Some examples of how the media help maintain white male privilege:
Why Brock Turner's mug shot matters
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The average criminal has a low IQ and very high-self-esteem.
The average college rapist has a reasonable IQ - he's a college student.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
The summer after my sophomore year in college I briefly worked for the county picking up trash on the side of rural roads. They took us in pick-up trucks out to the middle of nowhere and picked us up hours later. One of my co-workers was a guy I went to high school with, and when I told my parents that he was on this crew and that he'd asked me for a ride home, my father made me quit the job. He didn't give much of an explantion, but I took it that he didn't want me miles outside of town with this guy, whose only offense as far as I knew was being slow and weird.
I don't know if I was in any danger. Maybe my dad knew something about this guy that I didn't. But I don't think he was contributing to rape culture by doing something he thought would protect me.
Your father sounds like a good guy to me. I imagine he had heard rumors along the lines of the weird guy being some sort of sexual predator. Maybe something suspected but not proven.
I hope he never told that story to people like the ones on this board, who would be angry at him for making his daughter give up a summer job she liked when she had done nothing wrong. They would say that he was blaming you when it was the weird guy who was the one at fault and the only one who should be punished.
Your father probably was too level headed to become defensive about being attacked just for trying to keep you safe, but it's possible some man in that situation might have said to the mob, "Well alright then, let your daughter work with the sex offender and see how you like it if something happens to her."
Then the mob would have an excuse to go wild and tell him how paternalistic and awful he was, exactly like the men who tell young women who get raped that it's their own fault for dressing slutty and just like the men in Saudi Arabia who don't let their daughters out of the house.
Then Ariston could tell him it was his white privilege talking.
Leorning Cniht could bring up something totally irrelevant left over from a discussion about why tougher sentences don't bring less crime.
Soror Magna could find out if someone in the family had cancer and say, "Your mind is more rotten than your brother's lungs."
Finally, Mr. Cheesy could get his greatest wish; a chance to put on his best pinafore, take up his pots and pans, and lead the irate populace as they drum him out of town, shouting, "For shame, for shame!"
Yep. Glad that didn't happen.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Go ahead Mousethief, encourage your daughter to go to frat parties, drink as many shots as the boys, get on the table and do a strip tease.
quote:
How old are you? How much do you weigh? What did you eat that day? Well what did you have for dinner? Who made dinner? Did you drink with dinner? No, not even water? When did you drink? How much did you drink? What container did you drink out of? Who gave you the drink? How much do you usually drink? Who dropped you off at this party? At what time? But where exactly? What were you wearing? Why were you going to this party? What’ d you do when you got there? Are you sure you did that? But what time did you do that? What does this text mean? Who were you texting? When did you urinate? Where did you urinate? With whom did you urinate outside? Was your phone on silent when your sister called? Do you remember silencing it? Really because on page 53 I’d like to point out that you said it was set to ring. Did you drink in college? You said you were a party animal? How many times did you black out? Did you party at frats? Are you serious with your boyfriend? Are you sexually active with him? When did you start dating? Would you ever cheat? Do you have a history of cheating? What do you mean when you said you wanted to reward him? Do you remember what time you woke up? Were you wearing your cardigan? What color was your cardigan? Do you remember any more from that night? No? Okay, well, we’ll let Brock fill it in.
The big problem with narratives along the lines of "if you don't do X you won't get raped" is that 1) it's a lie and 2) it's a not-very-subtle way of telling rapists which are the 'right' victims. The one's everyone will cluck their tongues over and blame for their own assaults.
An interesting bit of phraseology from ESPN about the case:
quote:
The former Stanford swimmer convicted of sexual assault on an unconscious woman failed to reveal his drug and alcohol use in a letter to the judge.
Brock Turner told Judge Aaron Persky that he was an inexperienced drinker and that "the party culture and risk taking behavior" during his four months at Stanford led him to make a bad decision.
But court documents released Friday show that prosecutors cited several examples of Turner using hard drugs and alcohol at Stanford and in high school. Prosecutors say text messages recovered from his cellphone showed Turner discussing using LSD and ecstasy and smoking marijuana and dabs of butane hash oil, known as "wax," from as early as April 2014.
Court documents also show campus police gave him a ticket for underage drinking in November 2014.
"[F]ailed to reveal" is a great example of using the passive voice to shift responsibility. "Misled the court" might be more accurate, given his statements about his relative inexperience. "Lied" might be even more straightforward, but journalists usually refrain from stating anything so boldly.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The big problem with narratives along the lines of "if you don't do X you won't get raped" is that 1) it's a lie and 2) it's a not-very-subtle way of telling rapists which are the 'right' victims.
Of course it would be stupid to say "if you don't do x you wont get raped." That's why no one here has said that. I did suggest that if you don't get drunk you will be better able to fend off creeps and protect yourself, so possibly less likely to get raped. Just like if you don't leave your car unlocked, it still might get stolen, but it's less likely. "Less likely" may not seem worth the trouble to you, but I'll bet to the girl who escapes rape it's very worth it.
Oops! Maybe I shouldn't have said that. Now the thieves will know that unlocked cars are easier to steal and drunk girls are easier to manipulate. But, you know, as dumb as the average criminal is*, I doubt if they are as dumb as all that.
*and as someone is sure to point out, college boys are smart.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
The problem is the emphasis. Do we really want men wandering around who feel it is ok to rape drunk or unconscious women? Or that it is a lesser offense to do so? Getting drunk is a separate problem.
I'm a bit baffled about some of the news coverage of the Stanford graduation ceremony (I was present so have a fairly good idea what went on). Quite a few mentioned how the Turner case was protested/referred to and even mentioned that Ken Burns, the commencement speaker, referred to it. But most so far failed to mention Ken Burns 10 minute take down of an unnamed likely presidential nominee.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The average criminal has a low IQ and very high-self-esteem.
The average college rapist has a reasonable IQ - he's a college student.
And it's not exactly a cakewalk to get into Stanford.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Leorning Cniht could bring up something totally irrelevant left over from a discussion about why tougher sentences don't bring less crime.
You were the one who brought up the completely irrelevant "most criminals have low IQ" in the middle of a discussion about college rape.
You can't start by arguing "criminals have low IQ, and so X, Y and Z don't work" and then turn around and apply it to a population of criminals who do not have low IQ.
Because college rapists have a similar IQ range to college rape victims, in that both are representative of the body of college students.
And no, it's not just the stupid ones who are rapists.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
The problem is the emphasis. Do we really want men wandering around who feel it is ok to rape drunk or unconscious women? Or that it is a lesser offense to do so? Getting drunk is a separate problem.
I'm a bit baffled about some of the news coverage of the Stanford graduation ceremony (I was present so have a fairly good idea what went on). Quite a few mentioned how the Turner case was protested/referred to and even mentioned that Ken Burns, the commencement speaker, referred to it. But most so far failed to mention Ken Burns 10 minute take down of an unnamed likely presidential nominee.
Huffpost covered it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Finally, Mr. Cheesy could get his greatest wish; a chance to put on his best pinafore, take up his pots and pans, and lead the irate populace as they drum him out of town, shouting, "For shame, for shame!"
Yep. Glad that didn't happen.
I would waste my time showing how a) I've agreed with much of what you've said and b) I objected to your personal characterisation of another user of this website but I can't be arsed.
[ 13. June 2016, 07:24: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
"This Is How You Teach Kids About Consent" (The Good Men Project, via HuffPost). Really good steps, IMHO.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
It's fine to take steps to be safer. It's fine to encourage others to take steps to be safer. Most women (I can't speak for men) do this automatically: we watch over each other, move around in groups, mind drinks and so on. Almost every parent is having discussions with their kids, checking out how trustworthy their friends seem, deciding on curfews and so on - at least while they're still at home. There is not one person on this board who wouldn't warn someone if we knew they were going to be spending time with someone who was likely to assault them. So discard that particularly nasty piece pf strawmannery.
The problem comes when someone gets raped - in this case Emily Doe - and the focus zooms in on what she did wrong. In this case what was she doing at a college party anyway? Individuals zoom in on it. The media zooms in. The courts zoom in. There's a whole spectrum here from mild to extreme victim blaming, but when a crime happens and anyone explains it primarily with reference to the victim's behaviour, that is what's happening. There's also a spectrum of advice about avoiding being raped which goes from sensible (know how you're going to get home at the end of the evening) at one end to the aforementioned Saudi gender segregation at the other.
The major difference between "don't go and drink at parties" compared with "don't get in the car with a drunk driver" is that the drunk driver is very clearly and explicitly about to commit a crime. Don't go with someone who's said they're going to break into someone else's house either. You'll be complicit in criminal activities if you do. Sure, you shouldn't go to a party with someone who says "let's go over to Jim's house on Saturday so I can rape you in the guest bedroom" but you don't tend to get that kind of warning about planned criminal activity. So the only way to completely eliminate the risk of being raped at a party is never to go to one, ever. For many people that's a miserable sacrifice.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
There is not one person on this board who wouldn't warn someone if we knew they were going to be spending time with someone who was likely to assault them. So discard that particularly nasty piece pf strawmannery.
I think the strwmannery is yours. Here is my first post about protecting our daughters: quote:
For thousands of years, right up until I was in college*, parties for young single people were chaperoned. Now we just throw the young women to the wolves and get outraged and angry when something like this happens.
It really should have been clear in that post and others about protecting our daughters that I was talking about society at large up until this point in history -- and not the particular people on this board. Of course the people on this board, educated, people who are particularly sympathetic to certain groups and genders, would have talked to their daughters the way Alan Cresswell very eloquently described a few pages back. That isn't everyone. Some young women aren't being taught very much at all. Equally obvious, I would think, is that society at large isn't educating their sons very well about treating young women with respect, limiting their drinking to what they can control, handling their sexual urges appropriately. I know the colleges try. Yesterday I heard a woman on NPR who teaches college classes on this very subject. She mentioned things like asking permission before every touch, continuing to ask permission at each step, etc. So they are being taught one extreme from their classes and an entirely, almost opposite, set of "rules," from their friends and what they see in movies. So no matter how nice and sensitive the children belonging to the people on this board are, I think it's hard for some out there to know where to draw the line. That's where I would like to see them protected from themselves a little until their brains and experience have caught up with them a bit more.
The above post is about the problem of sexual assault in general, not about Brock Turner. Please don't tell me he has a high IQ and should have known better and he must surely have known he crossed the line. I know all that. I am not his defender. I think he as a complete, deviant pervert who should have been given years in prison. Please quit acting setting me up as his best friend. I am sick of it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
For thousands of years, right up until I was in college*, parties for young single people were chaperoned. Now we just throw the young women to the wolves and get outraged and angry when something like this happens.
But this is just fantasy.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
For thousands of years, right up until I was in college*, parties for young single people were chaperoned. Now we just throw the young women to the wolves and get outraged and angry when something like this happens.
But this is just fantasy.
I agree that it looks unreal. But where do you think the glitch in the statistics comes from? Are less people reporting the crime? Are law enforcement agencies getting slipshod about reporting to this national Bureau? Or is the Bureau slipshod? Or have the parameters of reported rape changed? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
ETA: I just thought about the old Boomer effect on crime statistics. When the Boomer bulge contained many young people (especially young men) between sixteen and thirty-five the sheer numbers of most crimes were higher.
[ 13. June 2016, 14:22: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
When an official statistic-collecting body produces a set of official statistics, you can have a variety of responses. I'd suggest one of the better responses is "perhaps my feelings aren't the best indicator of how the world actually is".
Exhibit A (inexplicably a .xls file, but it renders fine in Firefox)
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I agree that it looks unreal. But where do you think the glitch in the statistics comes from?
Why should it be a glitch? My understanding was that rape rates have fallen sharply since 1970, despite more reporting etc.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Note the dates.
Indeed, the given statistics might be expected. The fear of crime and the amount of crime are rarely correlated. What I would expect is that there would be a high water mark just after women are accepted into society unchaperoned and for it to decrease thereafter as men and women get used to the new boundaries.
Jengie
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Exhibit A (inexplicably a .xls file, but it renders fine in Firefox)
So when I read that table, the information that I come away with is that violent crime, murder, robbery, and aggravated assault have all halved in incidence over the last two decades, whereas the rate of forcible rape has only reduced by a third.
Or, broadly speaking, your risk of being raped has gone down, but you would expect to encounter more reporting of rape in the press.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
More reporting of rape, full stop, since there's been a historical under-reporting of that, compared to other violent crime. But even then, the statistics don't exactly back up a "throw our daughters to the wolves" scenario.
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on
:
Quite apart from the fact that chaperoning adults around does in fact involve a level of infantalising them and impinging upon their freedom*, I don't think it's going to work. Whenever women *are* "protected", rapists seem to feel more entitled to rape any woman who somehow lets that armour slip for a moment. And it will slip. The rapist who picks out the drunkest girl at the party to rape is going for the easiest target, but he'd still rape someone if that particular girl wasn't there - it'd just be a different person who was the easiest target.
*I suppose you could make a case for preventing underage drinking in the US. That's harder to do in places where 18-year-olds are allowed to drink.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The big problem with narratives along the lines of "if you don't do X you won't get raped" is that 1) it's a lie and 2) it's a not-very-subtle way of telling rapists which are the 'right' victims.
Of course it would be stupid to say "if you don't do x you wont get raped." That's why no one here has said that. I did suggest that if you don't get drunk you will be better able to fend off creeps and protect yourself, so possibly less likely to get raped. Just like if you don't leave your car unlocked, it still might get stolen, but it's less likely. "Less likely" may not seem worth the trouble to you, but I'll bet to the girl who escapes rape it's very worth it.
The big problem with advice like this is that it treats sexual assault like some kind of unpreventable natural disaster, like a flood or tornado, rather than a deliberate action by a human actor. Brock Turner chose to rape Emily Doe because she was the most vulnerable woman at the time. If Emily Do had been completely sober her ability to "fend off creeps and protect [her]self" would be irrelevant because Mr. Turner would almost certainly have picked someone else to rape that night. While "don't be the most vulnerable person in the group" may be sound practice on a individual level, as blanket advice for a whole class of people it's only real purpose is to shift suffering around. In other words, it's advice not so much about preventing rape as about shifting it onto women considered more 'deserving' of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Oops! Maybe I shouldn't have said that. Now the thieves will know that unlocked cars are easier to steal and drunk girls are easier to manipulate. But, you know, as dumb as the average criminal is, I doubt if they are as dumb as all that.
It's more about the message that's communicated with all the blaming and second-guessing of certain classes of victims. The endless rounds of 'if she'd only been [sober / at home after dark / wearing a niqāb / whatever] she would never have been assaulted' tells rapists which victims are least likely to get them into trouble if apprehended. It's a way of supplying them with the guidelines and parameters for who to target.
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
The problem comes when someone gets raped - in this case Emily Doe - and the focus zooms in on what she did wrong.
The increased focus on the victim and what she is considered to have done wrong also necessarily decreases focus on the rapist. This is such a commonplace and predictable phenomenon it's hard to conclude that this isn't intentional.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
More reporting of rape, full stop, since there's been a historical under-reporting of that, compared to other violent crime. But even then, the statistics don't exactly back up a "throw our daughters to the wolves" scenario.
Though people have been accused of that philosophy, none on this thread have actually advocated it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
That'll be because we're ordinary decent parents, and not a bunch of fucking idiots.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
As I've said before, parenting skills are not the primary focus. Preventing rapists from raping is. Granted, there are some people who will attempt rape regardless, but a large number happen because the rapist feels entitled and doesn't consider the victim as important.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As I've said before, parenting skills are not the primary focus.
No, but refuting those who think I'm a terrible parent because, God forbid, I 'let' my teenage daughter leave the house and go to parties with boys, is necessary. If not obligatory.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Never thought of you as a terrible parent.
Terrible person, maybe, but not a terrible parent.
rimshot
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
She seems remarkably balanced, considering. Swears like a navvy, drinks like a fish, looks like a (goth) angel, and as smart as fuck.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
For thousands of years, right up until I was in college*, parties for young single people were chaperoned. Now we just throw the young women to the wolves and get outraged and angry when something like this happens.
But this is just fantasy.
I guess that shows me. Other than the fact that this graph begins in 1973 at the height of the free love hippie movement and I was talking about years beginning in biblical times and ending when I was in college in 1965. Plus my hypothetical girls were at chaperoned parties not women over all.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
For thousands of years, right up until I was in college*, parties for young single people were chaperoned. Now we just throw the young women to the wolves and get outraged and angry when something like this happens.
But this is just fantasy.
I guess that shows me. Other than the fact that this graph begins in 1973 at the height of the free love hippie movement and I was talking about years beginning in biblical times and ending when I was in college in 1965. Plus my hypothetical girls were at chaperoned parties not women over all.
Not sure what you're arguing here. Is it that you don't care about sexual assaults that happen outside a "party" context? Or that all women should be chaperoned whenever leaving their homes?
Besides, if you're going to go back to "Biblical time" I think it's pretty clear that having a chaperone is no preventative to sexual assault.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
More idiotic rapesplainy patriarchal "advice" that completely misses the point.
The big problem with advice like this is that it treats sexual assault like some kind of unpreventable natural disaster, like a flood or tornado, rather than a deliberate action by a human actor. ... While "don't be the most vulnerable person in the group" may be sound practice on a individual level, as blanket advice for a whole class of people it's only real purpose is to shift suffering around. In other words, it's advice not so much about preventing rape as about shifting it onto women considered more 'deserving' of it.
Bravo. Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
.. Soror Magna could find out if someone in the family had cancer and say, "Your mind is more rotten than your brother's lungs." ...
No, I wouldn't. Lung cancer isn't funny. Mental illness is.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Congratulations, Soror Magna. You have succeeded where so many have tried and failed over the past 14 years. I'm out of here.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I guess that shows me. Other than the fact that this graph begins in 1973 at the height of the free love hippie movement and I was talking about years beginning in biblical times and ending when I was in college in 1965. Plus my hypothetical girls were at chaperoned parties not women over all.
Rape wasn't less back then, just less reported. And, since men were even more in control of what defined rape, fewer things were considered rape.
I was not trying to show you up, but trying to show that perception doesn't equal reality.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
The big problem with advice like this is that it treats sexual assault like some kind of unpreventable natural disaster, like a flood or tornado, rather than a deliberate action by a human actor. ...
It would be like telling gay people not to go to nightclubs because you could get shot.
It isn't that hard not to shoot people. I didn't shoot anyone, today gay or straight. I am not even shooting anyone right now.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Congratulations, Soror Magna. You have succeeded where so many have tried and failed over the past 14 years. I'm out of here.
Please don't give the haters the satisfaction. I don't always agree with you, but I value your voice.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Congratulations, Soror Magna. You have succeeded where so many have tried and failed over the past 14 years. I'm out of here.
Please don't give the haters the satisfaction. I don't always agree with you, but I value your voice.
What haters? I see angry disagreement, but not haters. Back down from the hysteria.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Congratulations, Soror Magna. You have succeeded where so many have tried and failed over the past 14 years. I'm out of here.
Please don't give the haters the satisfaction. I don't always agree with you, but I value your voice.
What haters? I see angry disagreement, but not haters. Back down from the hysteria.
Weellll, kinda in the middle. I think there was over-reaction and a bit more viciousness than was warranted. I think Twilight voiced her position poorly, and I do think it slightly misguided as well.
Haters? maybe not, but just because one can be a dick, doesn't mean one should be.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Congratulations, Soror Magna. You have succeeded where so many have tried and failed over the past 14 years. I'm out of here.
Please don't give the haters the satisfaction. I don't always agree with you, but I value your voice.
What haters? I see angry disagreement, but not haters. Back down from the hysteria.
I'm using "haters" in the more loose, millenial way as in "haters gonna hate" or as the Urban Dictionary says "A phrase used to express apathy towards another's disapproval".
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
.. Soror Magna could find out if someone in the family had cancer and say, "Your mind is more rotten than your brother's lungs." ...
No, I wouldn't. Lung cancer isn't funny. Mental illness is.
WTF?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
No, I wouldn't. Lung cancer isn't funny. Mental illness is.
Is this some sort of clever self-deprecating ironic comment that doesn't quite work or just as breath-takingly stupid as it looks?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
.. Soror Magna could find out if someone in the family had cancer and say, "Your mind is more rotten than your brother's lungs." ...
No, I wouldn't. Lung cancer isn't funny. Mental illness is.
WTF?
.
Ditto.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Lung cancer isn't funny, but someone in a mental health hospital is. Obvs.
FFS. What is wrong with you, Soror Magna? How can you not see that someone who has someone close to them with a mental illness that you know about is not going to want to see that link?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
How can you not see that someone who has someone close to them with a mental illness that you know about is not going to want to see that link?
Worse still would be to see that and still purposefully post the link. Statistically speaking most of us will have someone close to us with a mental illness. I have.
[ 14. June 2016, 08:22: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And many Shipmates have mental illness, of varying sorts. E.g., I have a couple of kinds of depression
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I once asked a friend what kind of depression they had. They had "The shit kind".
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Yup.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Maria Bamford, the comedian in the link, is bipolar II. She addresses her difficulties in her routines and, IIRC, uses humour to educate about mental illness.
Even knowing this, that link felt a little disturbing.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Yes, at some other time, when I'm in an appropriate mood, I may watch it. Looking at the comments, evidently some viewers who've been in psych facilities found her routine to be both accurate and funny.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I didn't know that background and it changes my view of the link. But in the context on this thread and taking the text of the post in question it looks nasty and pointed rather than funny.
[ 14. June 2016, 13:22: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
That is what I was trying to say. I don't think it was meant to be funny.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I don't know what Soror M's intent was in posting the link. The exchange with Twilight seems... personal and purposeful. And too dark and awful even for hell. I hope I'm reading it wrong, but doesn't seem like it.
Hell is for good, mean fun. This is not fun.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
You don't and you are.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
You don't and you are.
Who are you talking to and wtf is this supposed to mean?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
You don't and you are.
Who are you talking to and wtf is this supposed to mean?
I think it's a response to my post:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't know what Soror M's intent was in posting the link. The exchange with Twilight seems... personal and purposeful. And too dark and awful even for hell. I hope I'm reading it wrong, but doesn't seem like it.
So the comment confirms that yes, I don't know Soror's intent and yes, I am reading it wrong.
I hope that is the case. Perhaps it should go to PM then as it appears to be a private conversation.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Hell is for good, mean fun.
It is, but not only. You don't get to police what happens here. If you'd like to discuss the limits of Hell, Styx is ^ that way.
DT
HH
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Hell is for good, mean fun.
It is, but not only. You don't get to police what happens here. If you'd like to discuss the limits of Hell, Styx is ^ that way.
DT
HH
Sorry-- I wasn't trying to control the conversation, just reacting to it/ commenting on it. I'll watch the wording next time.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Women are constantly barraged by well-meaning idiots with the same fucking don't drink / don't dress slutty / don't go to parties / don't walk alone / don't leave your house / don't make eye contact / don't get in elevators / etcetera etcetera etcetera. Let's not forget, "Go ahead Mousethief, encourage your daughter to go to frat parties, drink as many shots as the boys, get on the table and do a strip tease. Then after she's been raped you can shout to the skies about how none of that meant permission to rape her and the rapist should do twenty five years, etc." And "I frankly don't care whether the frat boys go to parties and get drunk because the likelihood that they are going to be overpowered and raped is negligible." The good old days of chaperones versus "throwing our daughters to the wolves". All that does, as Doc Tor pointed out, is help rapists get away with rape. And what impact does that bullshit have on the survivors? We know - self-blame, guilt, doubt, shame. I'm fucking sick and tired of that shit, I have no patience for it, and I'm quite sure survivors of assault hate it even more than I do. IT. HAS. TO. STOP.
And for the record, I've spend my fair share of time in psych wards, as have several of my friends, and we all went to see Maria Bamford and laughed our assess off. Your mileage, sensitivities, and/or grip on your pearls may vary.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
and I'm quite sure survivors of assault hate it even more than I do.
Varies, but generally yes.
quote:
IT. HAS. TO. STOP.
Yes, it does.
Not taking sides, I think it was kinda fucked up in both directions. The sad thing is the opportunity to reach someone who seemed reachable might be lost.
quote:
And for the record, I've spend my fair share of time in psych wards, as have several of my friends, and we all went to see Maria Bamford and laughed our assess off. Your mileage, sensitivities, and/or grip on your pearls may vary.
Maria is one of my favourite comedians. In part because she confronts her experience in an irreverent, but not disrespectful way. And she is damn funny. However using that sketch, with no immediate context, was OTT. IMO, obviously.
Now, I am not condemning you for doing so. It would be hypocritical, because I am certain I've crossed those lines myself. And Twilight, wittingly or not, pushed those same boundaries.
However, it should be a caution that the same people who were confronting Twilight about her remarks are also questioning yours.
Gods this is exhausting.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
When I followed the link, it was clearly a comedy sketch. I didn't know the comedienne from Eve, and had no context from the link to decide if she was some sicko getting kicks poking fun at people with mental illness, or she was someone with a mental illness poking fun at herself. But, that's irrelevant - I'm not sure anyone here is questioning the quality of the comedy, or whether or not it's in bad taste.
What we're finding distinctly odd is a link to it with the text "mental illness is funny". For those who suffer from mental illness, or have friends and family who suffer, mental illness is NOT funny. Though we sometimes manage to laugh at things from time to time. Posting that link, in the way it was posted and without any obvious connection to this thread or context is what generated the "WTF???" responses - I didn't add to the chorus because there wasn't any point, but did think it was something way out of line. If we were having a discussion of the portrayal of mental illness in the media, and whether it's an appropriate subject for comedy then the link would have been fine. But we're not, we're discussing rape and the criminal justice response to it.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
You don't and you are.
Then I don't know who is reading you right and you don't seem to be in the mood to help. It looks just plain nasty to me as well.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
To be fair to SM, I more than understand the anger and frustration. I simply think it is too strong a reaction in this case.
Not sure why I'm playing at peacemaking. I think I'm going back to angry bitch, much easier.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
... However, it should be a caution that the same people who were confronting Twilight about her remarks are also questioning yours.
Gods this is exhausting.
Fair enough, and I accept the pummelling - it's a known risk of failed black humour.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Much of what Twilight posted made me angry as well. I would say it is too strong a reaction though, if that carries the sense that it turns the dial up too far. It's just the wrong sort of reaction rather than just too much of it.
There's nothing wrong with venting anger, particularly here, and expressing just how angry a particular post made you.
But picking on something personal like this to calculatingly cause hurt is just plain wrong rather than too much.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Is this some sort of clever self-deprecating ironic comment that doesn't quite work or just as breath-takingly stupid as it looks?
It was an attempt at the first, resulting in the second.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
fair 'nuff.
I'll leave before the fluffy bunnies arrive.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Is this some sort of clever self-deprecating ironic comment that doesn't quite work or just as breath-takingly stupid as it looks?
It was an attempt at the first, resulting in the second.
A worthy admission. Perhaps more usefully admitted to earlier and more clearly.
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I didn't know the comedienne from Eve, and had no context from the link to decide if she was some sicko getting kicks poking fun at people with mental illness, or she was someone with a mental illness poking fun at herself.
Bamford is kind of a national treasure here in the US, though she is not as well known as she deserves to be given her talent. She has, indeed, dealt with mental illness throughout her life culminating with stays in the psych ward and outpatient care after a national ad campaign for Target, a large department store chain, where she played hyperironically a manic shopper. She released a largely autobiographical comedy series called Lady Dynamite on Netflix last month which is surreal, intensely funny and extremely compassionate to her own journey and mental illness in general. Well worth checking out.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Bamford is wonderful. The genius of the above piece is that she was finding the absurd in a harrowing experience of her own. It's in the same tradition as Richard Pryor's lenghthy routine about recovering from third degree burns over his torso after his crack pipe exploded.
Now, if Bamford did a routine about how Pryor was bandaged from head to foot, and how bad his blisters stank, and how he cried like a little bitch when he got his first sponge bath-- well, that would make her a huge asshole. Because it's not her experience to jeer about.
Thanks for snapping out of whatever that was, Soror Magnum.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Is this some sort of clever self-deprecating ironic comment that doesn't quite work or just as breath-takingly stupid as it looks?
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It was an attempt at the first, resulting in the second.
Got it, and been there myself on occasion. Thanks.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
The latest roundup: cell phone, pot, LSD, fake ID, underage drinking ...
Stanford rape case: Inside the court documents
The full sentencing brief can be found here:
Brock Turner Sentencing Brief
There's lots more legal detail about the parameters for sentencing and probation. IANAL, but it's hard not to conclude that the judge, assisted by the probation department, let Turner off super-easy-peasy, either out of favouritism (likely) or stunning naivete (not likely).
And for dessert, legal victim-blaming and slut-shaming:
quote:
... The 22-year-old, who was on holiday, was drugged in a Doha hotel and woke up in an unfamiliar flat, where she realised she had been raped, her lawyer says. ...
She was arrested in March on suspicion of having sex outside of marriage. She is due to appear in court on Monday. ...
The woman may also be charged with an alcohol-related offence, news website Doha News reported. ...
Dutch woman arrested in Qatar after making rape claim
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Hell is for good, mean fun.
Where on earth did you get that idea?
[note to self: read the whole thread before replying to a post. sorry Doc]
[ 15. June 2016, 15:58: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Thanks for snapping out of whatever that was, Soror Magnum.
And again - WTF? Where's the dogpile on Soror Magnum to equal the one for Twilight?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Dogpile coordinator's off day. I jumped the gun without the usual PM.
Seriously, if you want an analysis I'd say the differences are that the SM dogpile ended earlier and had fewer piling in to start with. The early stop might be put down to stopping digging and an admission of failing to communicate, the fewer pilers to start with might be due to inherent bias due to the topic or the pilee, or due to the stage in the thread. Maybe also a single nasty line with a load of single liner "WTF" and "that's nasty" responses don't get as much dogpile momentum as paragraphs of prose with paragraphs of response.
[ 15. June 2016, 16:51: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on
:
mdijon - I'd agree with you except it wasn't a single comment. It was preceded her saying to Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And since you think we're being mean about your son's schizophrenia - news to me - I'll say that the voices in his head probably make a hell of a lot more sense than you do.
That wasn't self-deprecating humour.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
You're right, I'd missed that. Nastier and harder to explain as an error of humour judgement.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
the fewer pilers to start with might be due to inherent bias due to the topic or the pilee, or due to the stage in the thread.
The parts I left in bold are the ones I'd wager on.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Thanks for snapping out of whatever that was, Soror Magnum.
And again - WTF? Where's the dogpile on Soror Magnum to equal the one for Twilight?
I meant " snapping out of whatever possesed you to type that."
"WTF" did you read?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Thanks for snapping out of whatever that was, Soror Magnum.
And again - WTF? Where's the dogpile on Soror Magnum to equal the one for Twilight?
I meant " snapping out of whatever possesed you to type that."
"WTF" did you read?
That's how I read Kel's statement also.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Me, too.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I think that's also how RuthW read it. It indicates, if I'm honest like my post did as well, an end to a dogpile over something because SM 'snapped out of it' and that seems rather different from Twilight's treatment here.
I guess the counter to that is that Twilight didn't 'snap out of it' but on the other hand as Hiro's leap has just pointed out SM's explanation seems not to cover all the nastiness posted here.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Yeah, as I have only posted about three times with great space in between post, that went by me as well.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Talking of space, it feels a bit chilly and quiet here.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Talking of space, it feels a bit chilly and quiet here.
People are busy yelling about other things now.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Threads wax and wane like the moon, only with less effect on menstruation.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
I’m late a bit late to this train wreck of a thread. FWIW I agree with a lot of what Twilight was saying and I think a lot of the posters responding to her were misreading what she wrote and (possibly deliberately, possibly unintentionally) misrepresenting what she was trying to say. I notice that a lot of the people responding to her don’t live in the US, so it’s possible that we’re simply reacting to different cultural contexts.
Soror Magna, OTOH, is a typical SJW. She possesses a blind faith in an ideology that rivals any Christian fundamentalist’s insistence that their arbitrary belief system is the only true one, and her faith is just as impervious to evidence and argumentation. She excuses her nastiness (and make no mistake, she has an incredibly nasty streak, even if the denizens laughed at me the last time I tried to point it out) on the basis of the fact that she’s supposedly protecting the vulnerable and stopping people from saying or doing things they ought not to be saying or doing in the first place.
It may very well be her experience, but I have no idea what the fuck she’s talking about when she says things like “When is someone going to tell MEN to just stop raping?” In my world, people have been doing that my entire life. Just like people have been telling people not to murder and steal and whatnot my entire life. With some people the message just doesn’t take, hence the need for risk reduction strategies. Seriously, male shipmates, I can understand if nobody taught you anything about rape because the subject was too awkward or your parents expected you to wait until marriage to have sex and didn’t give a lot of advice about negotiating the world of drunken hookups with strangers, but how many of you weren’t taught that rape is wrong? This attack on such an obvious strawman is a waste of energy and diverts time, energy, and funding away from finding solutions to things that are actually problems.
And, apparently unlike Soror Magna, I’m not constantly bombarded by advice on how to avoid getting raped. I think I could probably count the number of times I’ve received advice on that subject on one hand; I’m far more likely to receive advice on how to avoid other forms of assault and other crimes (such as theft). As someone who as experienced sexual assault (rape - although that word has lost all meaning at this point), I’d far rather talk to someone like Twilight than deal with Soror Magna’s patronizing attitude and resignation to the fact that women are simply going to be helpless victims until the men decide to do something. It’s all up to somebody else.
Do people seriously think that tea video is brilliant? Are you planning on showing it to middle schoolers? Because if you showed that to any college student I know, it’s would just annoy them. And possibly fuel some kind of ‘no means yes and yes means anal’ protest march. Because most men know that rape is wrong and find the current efforts at education (at least at the college + level) patronizing and infuriating.
You know,when Slutwalk first started up and I had the audacity to question whether or not the police officer had actually said what he was accused of saying, I got death threat and a bunch of comments along the lines of ‘you should be raped, then maybe you’d understand’ from the SJWs. Which has not done a lot to persuade me that people like Soror Magna have the moral high ground, especially given the lack of reading comprehension.
Twilight, I was going to PM you, but apparently I can’t. I hate to see you go, even if I do understand it. (The ship continues its march towards being a liberal echo chamber where no one need confront an idea they disagree with...)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I notice that a lot of the people responding to her don’t live in the US, so it’s possible that we’re simply reacting to different cultural contexts.
fwiw, I have lived in the US all my life.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
I almost pointed out that you were the exception but decided against it.
But it's hell, so I suppose I should expect nitpicking.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I almost pointed out that you were the exception but decided against it.
But it's hell, so I suppose I should expect nitpicking.
fwiw.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I notice that a lot of the people responding to her don’t live in the US, so it’s possible that we’re simply reacting to different cultural contexts.
fwiw I live in the US.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
1) "a lot" is not the same thing as "all". That's why I didn't say "all"
2) You and Twilight got into it over the fact that she accidentally used your name in a post, but can you point me to where you respond to any of the points she was attempting to make?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Soror Magna, OTOH, is a typical SJW.
You know that using SJW as an insult was devised by people who would see you, as a woman, have no rights? Those who would see people of colour as second-class citizens? It is fucked up that something which is good is used as a way to end conversation without actually addressing anything.
I'm not defending SM's mental heath insults, BTW.
quote:
“When is someone going to tell MEN to just stop raping?” In my world, people have been doing that my entire life. Just like people have been telling people not to murder and steal and whatnot my entire life. With some people the message just doesn’t take, hence the need for risk reduction strategies. Seriously, male shipmates, I can understand if nobody taught you anything about rape because the subject was too awkward or your parents expected you to wait until marriage to have sex and didn’t give a lot of advice about negotiating the world of drunken hookups with strangers, but how many of you weren’t taught that rape is wrong? This attack on such an obvious strawman is a waste of energy and diverts time, energy, and funding away from finding solutions to things that are actually problems.
What the serious fuck? You are wrong. The case which caused this thread is a perfect example of how much education and enforcement still needs to be done.
Did you actually read very much of this thread? No one has said being careful is a bad thing or unnecessary.
quote:
Twilight, I was going to PM you, but apparently I can’t. I hate to see you go,
I do not wish to see her leave either. I often disagree with her, but I think her heart is in the right place and she generally listens. That is a valuable trait, especially when consensus is not reached.
quote:
(The ship continues its march towards being a liberal echo chamber where no one need confront an idea they disagree with...)
Though I would agree that the Ship lists to port, this is rubbish.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I notice that a lot of the people responding to her don’t live in the US, so it’s possible that we’re simply reacting to different cultural contexts.
fwiw, I have lived in the US all my life.
And Kelly Alves, mousethief, Golden Key, RuthW, Mertseger, Ariston... Rook lives in America and is from America Jr. no prophet can see the U.S. from his backyard.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know that using SJW as an insult was devised by people who would see you, as a woman, have no rights? Those who would see people of colour as second-class citizens?
Bullshit.
quote:
It is fucked up that something which is good is used as a way to end conversation without actually addressing anything.
What does that sentence even mean?
quote:
What the serious fuck? You are wrong.
No, I'm not wrong. So 13% of men admit they would rape a woman. That says nothing about whether or not they were taught that it's wrong. What percentage of people are taught that stealing or murder or adultery or whatever else is wrong but would do it anyway?
As for the 31% - I don't have time right now to look up the articles that debunk that survey, but IIRC the results are extremely exaggerated (I think they included things like using minor verbal coercion as using force - not to mention the fact that the question itself makes no sense as it asks if people would do something if no one knew about it - the question might make sense if it asked 'if no one besides the victim knew about it' but as it stands it's just another one of those nonsensical highly manipulative surveys they're always inflicting on us).
quote:
The case which caused this thread is a perfect example of how much education and enforcement still needs to be done.
How so? Do you really think education alone would convince any of the people involved that their behavior was wrong?
quote:
Did you actually read very much of this thread? No one has said being careful is a bad thing or unnecessary.
Yes, I read the whole thread. More than once because a lot of people's reactions simply made no sense to me.
Maybe no one has said that being careful is a bad thing or unnecessary. But apparently we're not allowed to give any advice to others about how to be careful because we just need to teach men to stop raping. Because no one's ever tried that before.
I used to work at colleges. Some of the advice I used to give went as follows:
1) You never have to be alone with anyone. Ever. There's nothing that says you do. And you don't need a particularly good reason to refuse to be alone with someone. If someone makes you uncomfortable, even if you can't pinpoint the exact reason, you're perfectly within your rights to refuse to be alone with them. Sometimes when someone makes you uncomfortable it's because they're violating minor boundaries. Someone who violates minor boundaries isn't necessarily going to violate major ones, but it's more likely.
2) Binge drinking is stupid. Getting falling down, throwing up, blackout drunk is just stupid and unhealthy and may put you in danger.
3) Getting drunk and hooking up with someone you barely know is stupid. If you've had more than a couple of drinks and you meet someone yo like, GET THEIR NUMBER. Don't go home with them.
4) Y'all need to watch out for each other. If you have a friend of either sex who looks like they're about to go off with someone - even if it looks like they both want to - but you know your friend is stupid drunk, try to talk them out of it; try to convince them to get the person's number but to go home and sleep in their own bed.
Even prefaced with a statement about how rape is a terrible thing and if it happens it isn't your fault, blah, blah, blah, the office of sexual assault prevention made me stop telling students that as it was victim-blaming towards any student who didn't follow that advice and was sexually assaulted.
Because all we need to do is to tell men to stop raping.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Threads wax and wane like the moon, only with less effect on menstruation.
Though it seems counter-intuitive to wane following such an inadequate explanation for nasty personalized comments about mental health that have resulted in someone walking away from the ship.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
1) "a lot" is not the same thing as "all". That's why I didn't say "all"
2) You and Twilight got into it over the fact that she accidentally used your name in a post, but can you point me to where you respond to any of the points she was attempting to make?
Am I required to respond to every point made by every poster in every thread I participate in? Since when?
And if, as you claim, you have read all this thread, you will know that it is not just that she accidentally used my name, but the ugly things she said, that I got upset. This appears to have passed you by. Probably because you think the same ugly things she does.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know that using SJW as an insult was devised by people who would see you, as a woman, have no rights? Those who would see people of colour as second-class citizens?
Bullshit.
Really? Then give me examples of people who use it and still support women's equality, minority equality, efforts to lift people out of poverty, etc.
quote:
quote:
It is fucked up that something which is good is used as a way to end conversation without actually addressing anything.
What does that sentence even mean?
It means fighting for social justice is a good thing. And that people who use the label SJW do so to avoid dealing with the issues raised. Like politically correct it is used pejoratively to allow the user to continue unjustifiable behaviour.
Education isn't merely telling people something is wrong. It is helping them understand why. And this is where many places are failing still. To speak of proper behaviour in a lecture hall or in a rule book means nothing when cases such as this one show them the consequences are relatively minor.
As far as the study, show me a link that is not from a "men's rights" site, and we'll talk.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Threads wax and wane like the moon, only with less effect on menstruation.
Though it seems counter-intuitive to wane following such an inadequate explanation for nasty personalized comments about mental health that have resulted in someone walking away from the ship.
Yes. One is tempted to draw unpleasant conclusions from this.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Am I required to respond to every point made by every poster in every thread I participate in?
Obviously not. But if you're going to use yourself as an example of an American who has responded to Twilight's points (in order to refute my claim that a lot of people responding to her were not) it would help if you had actually responded to one of her points.
quote:
And if, as you claim, you have read all this thread, you will know that it is not just that she accidentally used my name, but the ugly things she said, that I got upset. This appears to have passed you by.
It was obvious to me that she was talking about a hypothetical. I think it was a huge mistake to use any Shipmate's name in the hypothetical, but I'm not sure what's so ugly about what she said. The fact is that administrators at a lot of colleges and universities are flat-out forbidden from mentioning any connection between alcohol and rape. This is stupid and has consequences. I read that as being her point - I certainly didn't see any intent to accuse any particular shipmate of bad parenting.
quote:
Probably because you think the same ugly things she does.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Am I required to respond to every point made by every poster in every thread I participate in?
Obviously not. But if you're going to use yourself as an example of an American who has responded to Twilight's points (in order to refute my claim that a lot of people responding to her were not) it would help if you had actually responded to one of her points.
You didn't say responding to her POINTS you said responding to HER. Nice try.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Maybe no one has said that being careful is a bad thing or unnecessary. But apparently we're not allowed to give any advice to others about how to be careful because we just need to teach men to stop raping. Because no one's ever tried that before.
Well, I'm not American and that seems to be your criterion for permission to comment on this thread. Apparently if we're not American we can't understand things sufficiently.
But, I'm also one of those you seem to think have been saying we shouldn't be giving advice about being careful. Just for the record, I've no objection at all to giving sensible advice. My questioning of Twilight was on two fronts.
One was that she seemed to be saying we need to give advice to young women, but that there was no corresponding advice to young men. Yes, not getting so drunk you are unable to make sensible decisions is good advice - for men as well as women. As well as being discriminatory, saying young women shouldn't enjoy themselves but men could, it also doesn't address the problem fully - eg: that alcohol fueled young men are more likely to overstep boundaries than sober young men.
My second concern, that others made more clearly, was that once you start issuing guidance on behaviour then those who fail to follow that advice get labelled as "asking for it". Victim blaming is not helpful, indeed quite the opposite. Young women going to a party should be able to wear what they want, they should be able to drink what they want, they should be able to walk home at the end of the night without anyone saying that they're asking to be assaulted.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Young women going to a party should be able to wear what they want, they should be able to drink what they want, they should be able to walk home at the end of the night without anyone saying that they're asking to be assaulted.
This is a question of balance for me. You have a conditional on the end of that sentence - "without anyone saying...".
There are moments on this thread though where the implication is that anyone advising a woman not to wear, drink and walk where they want is victim blaming. And there are contexts where that is true.
For instance if the first response to hearing about a rape case where the offender gets off with a light sentence is to remind women not to drink excessively, then that is very likely victim blaming rather than sensible advice.
If in the context of a more balanced response that focuses first on proper sentencing, enabling reporting and catching offenders then turns to balanced prevention advice then I think anyone picking out the comments that could be read as victim blaming is being unreasonable.
Having said that even if someone is straying into victim blaming I don't think that is license to say the most hurtful thing one can possibly find to say about their personal circumstances.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijion:
There are moments on this thread though where the implication is that anyone advising a woman not to wear, drink and walk where they want is victim blaming. And there are contexts where that is true.
Clothing isn't in the same category as behaviour. Drinking excessively or venturing into unsafe places are behaviours that can put one at risk for all sort of danger, and can be addressed as giving sensible advice. Advising women on what to wear to avoid rape is victim blaming everytime.
[ 17. June 2016, 10:35: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Why is it in a different category? It is a behavioural choice just like alcohol and staggering home drunk are.
I suggest the different reaction is because commenting on clothing choices is far more often associated with "dressed like a slut, deserved it" and is more likely to carry judgemental overtones.
Nevertheless I travel to many areas of the world where women who dress in various European styles are very likely to be harassed in the street. Is advising them of that likelihood really victim blaming every time?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
One difference is that advice about clothing almost always applies only to a section of the population, mostly young women. Advice about not getting drunk, not walking through particular areas of town at night and similar are applicable to most people.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Although where that advice on drinking is given in the context of avoiding date-rape with spiked drinks, for instance, it is generally intended for women. I agree theoretically it could be given to men as well, but that generally isn't the practice and most people know that when they read the advice.
I suppose "provocative dressing" could theoretically refer to wearing an Arsenal T-shirt in Millwall-land, but in practice when people talk about "provocative dressing" they usually mean non-burkha-wearing women.
(This is a common point to the dog-whistle purgatory thread here as well here).
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
It occurs to me there is one other difference - the clothes we wear are part of our identity. Being told to avoid wearing certain things in order to avoid being raped is therefore asking that we curtail our self-expression in the face of a criminal threat.
Watching one's drink carefully for being spiked is not really attacking anyone's identity.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I would also suspect that women from communities where wearing a burkha, hijab, or other full-body covering is culturally mandated would take issue with the idea that it protects them from rape.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
You mean that the protection isn't complete and therefore rape continues?
If so I'm sure that is true, but nevertheless it simply is a fact that in some settings the further one's dress sense departs from the burkha the more likely harassment is. I'm completely supportive of brave women who claim their right to not wear a burkha, but I think visitors ought to be aware of the likely opposition they will face if they do that.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
No, what you wear/do/go/drive clearly has been shown over history to have nothing to do with whether you are raped or not. (Nuns in their habits have been raped.) All a man's problems with his sex drive and abuse thereof reside solely, always, and forever until the end of time, with him and him alone. Being raped, accosted, groped, or catcalled is never the fault of the victim and always the fault of the perp, and it is important to never give an inch on this ever again.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I've observed in very recent history that there are some areas of the Middle-East where catcalls and harassment is directed especially frequently towards women not wearing burkhas.
I think that can be observed without excusing the harassers and catcallers. Would "not giving an inch" mean that we don't pass that information on to anyone? Or that when we pass it on we make sure the context shows we don't mention this by way of excusing the guilty parties?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Although where that advice on drinking is given in the context of avoiding date-rape with spiked drinks, for instance, it is generally intended for women. I agree theoretically it could be given to men as well, but that generally isn't the practice and most people know that when they read the advice.
I agree that the spiking of drinks is a risk, and being careful on that issue is something mostly related to women. But, that's not the same as "don't drink too much". No one is saying that women shouldn't drink, even too excess, just that they need to keep an eye on their drinks.
The advice about drinking too much covers a wide range of potential problems, that mostly apply to both men and women. Risks of falling over and injuring yourself (also, wandering into traffic, falling in a river ...) are by far the biggest. Then, risks of being easy prey to a thief, or simply dropping and losing your phone/cash/plastic. Risks of losing control and doing something stupid (eg: getting into a fight), but also added to that the risks of sleeping with someone you wouldn't have slept with if sober - and I suggest there's a good chance of both parties waking up next to whoever and regretting the actions of the night before. And, it's probably that a lot of rape happens because men have had too much to drink and lost control, and something stupid turns into criminal assault.
Plenty of very good reasons not too drink too much without needing to single out women saying they shouldn't drink too much (and, by implication, that it's not as bad if men overdo it).
quote:
I suppose "provocative dressing" could theoretically refer to wearing an Arsenal T-shirt in Millwall-land, but in practice when people talk about "provocative dressing" they usually mean non-burkha-wearing women.
Which is why I said "almost always". The example I was thinking of was I once saw a young man in a tee-shirt, the front of which had a variation on the "Ghostbusters" logo, with the ghost replaced by a liverbird and the caption "Scousebusters", and MUFC on the back. Seen in a park in Liverpool. Which comes under "inadvisable" in my book.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
So, if you scroll back in the thread, saysay, you will note Alan is probably the one person who did make quite a meticulous effort to respond to Twilight's points. For his efforts, he was treated to a description of his very, VERY young daughter performing a strip tease/ pole dance.
Yes, the comments Soror Magnum made afterward were inexcusable, but I personally went so visceral after the pole dancing thing I couldn't even see it. I hope Twilght comes back, but it 's easy for me to see why people hit defcon 1.
I guess one of the reasons being oddly singled out and confronted about my, er, three post contribution to a dog pile sticks in my craw is that in order to paint me as a dogpile lovin' bully is that you have to erase a good four or five years of my posting history to make that dog hunt. For years, I was that flake who would waltz to a Hell thread and Rodney King everyone. It kind of got beat out of me. I was called an appeaser, a troll- lover, a gullible crybaby, I was lectured on the sacred culling power of Hell and the social efficiency of the holy dogpile,I was told I didn't get Hell, didn't get the Ship, wanted the Ship to be sterile and sanitary, should go hide in beliefnet if I wanted safe, and ( my personal favorite, as it was clearly hand crafted to inflict the most pain) that I was flying in the face of everything Erin held dear. Once I even got a junior host smack for stating I thought the punishment in progress was well exceeding the crime and I personally was gonna peace out.
Hell, I remember Mousethief chiding me off board for being " that annoying person who has to play devil's advocate" or something. ( I disagreed with him, IOW.)
Not once do I remember anyone pausing to remark, "Hey, Kelly, I totally disagree with you, but it could'nt have been easy to speak up knowing the majority of the people you admire and respect are gonna treat you like a chew toy." No, it usually devolved to some conclusion that I didn't belong here.
I think time has really rendered that particular line of argument ridiculous, but ( as the soliloquy above demonstrates) My experiences have made me rather sensitive to Fluxuations in dogpile rhetoric.
And for the record, I definitely think Twlight belongs here, just as much as any of our annoying, arrogant asses, and hope she changes her mind.
[ 17. June 2016, 15:17: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Rape. Apparently they do it differently in America.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I guess one of the reasons being oddly singled out and confronted about my, er, three post contribution to a dog pile ...
Does this mean me?
If so, I said "WTF?" to your "Thank you" response to Soror Magnum because I think it's extremely unfair that she was so quickly forgiven and Twilight was not. I wasn't "confronting" you about three posts, just that one. The dogpile remark was addressed to everyone piling on.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Yeah, I realise me thinking someone directly quoting me and directly asking a question might be, y' know, direct is just nuts.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
I didn't say you were nuts. I clarified my post.
If you want to feel picked on, go right ahead. I don't give a flying fuck about your feelings at this point. After years of being picked on in ways that far exceeded anything aimed at you on these boards, Twilight finally left. You're still here, and an Admin to boot. So I'm not really going to concern myself with your thin skin.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
The point is not my skin, the point is the flip flops. For a very, very long time, people who challenged the dogpiile ethos were treated like they were challenging the Ship entire. Wasn't just me, I just remember examples from my own experience better than others.
Maybe I just think at some point those of us who did try to speak up deserve some sort of," maybe rather than being a bunch of hysterical whiners, some of you all might have had a point about the dogplie thing."
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yes, the comments Soror Magnum made afterward were inexcusable, but I personally went so visceral after the pole dancing thing I couldn't even see it.
I missed one of the most important elements as well. I had disagreed with Twilight, but was nowhere near visceral but I just missed it anyway. This community generally does a reasonable job of policing itself but this particular omission seems weird.
People are shouting about other things, the thread waxes and wanes, someone made a deliberately nasty comment about a family member's mental illness but so what, we'll all move on and have fun elsewhere.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
For a very, very long time, people who challenged the dogpiile ethos were treated like they were challenging the Ship entire. Wasn't just me, I just remember examples from my own experience better than others.
Maybe I just think at some point those of us who did try to speak up deserve some sort of," maybe rather than being a bunch of hysterical whiners, some of you all might have had a point about the dogplie thing."
But I'm not against dogpiling. I just think Soror Magnum deserved it at least as much as Twilight did, maybe more.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I think she deserved being reamed a new one for that crack, so why did you not do that?
I'm just gonna say it, I think you latched on to my post because you find me less intimidating than she, or some of the other dogpilers. That is entirely my fault. I fully intend to be much more intimidating in future.
As for dogpiling, I'm not really against it either. For one thing it makes great reading. What I have always hated was that whole "If you challenge the dogpile [ by saying someone was being unfair, by protesting specific invective, by calling the dogpilers a bunch of vindictive bastards] You Don't Get Hell" bullshit that flourished for a while. Some people who actually had big brass balls were told that they were weak and soft and un- unrestful-- as if challenging a wagon circle isn't unrestful-- and that has always bothered the SJW in me. Especially since I suspect we lost some good ones while that was going on.
And now that I've hissed about it, it probably won't bother me any more. Glad I finally said it, though.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think she deserved being reamed a new one for that crack, so why did you not do that?
I'm just gonna say it, I think you latched on to my post because you find me less intimidating than she, or some of the other dogpilers. That is entirely my fault. I fully intend to be much more intimidating in future.
Oh please. I latched on to your post because you thanked Soror Magnum.
Good luck with the intimidating thing.
quote:
As for dogpiling, I'm not really against it either. For one thing it makes great reading. What I have always hated was that whole "If you challenge the dogpile [ by saying someone was being unfair, by protesting specific invective, by calling the dogpilers a bunch of vindictive bastards] You Don't Get Hell" bullshit that flourished for a while. Some people who actually had big brass balls were told that they were weak and soft and un- unrestful-- as if challenging a wagon circle isn't unrestful-- and that has always bothered the SJW in me. Especially since I suspect we lost some good ones while that was going on.
And now that I've hissed about it, it probably won't bother me any more. Glad I finally said it, though.
I'm glad you got that off your chest. How many years has it been?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Marty, if you're out there, I'm totally identifying with what you've said about tangenting into philosophy, because while I am not really invested in starting a dogpile on SM at the moment, I see my comment about reaming her a new one as a great start for one.Maybe what starts a dogpile in the first place is us simply explaining and reexplaining and rereexplaining stuff we are no longer particularly upset about, while still describing the upsetness.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think she deserved being reamed a new one for that crack, so why did you not do that?
I'm just gonna say it, I think you latched on to my post because you find me less intimidating than she, or some of the other dogpilers. That is entirely my fault. I fully intend to be much more intimidating in future.
Oh please. I latched on to your post because you thanked Soror Magnum.
Good luck with the intimidating thing.
quote:
As for dogpiling, I'm not really against it either. For one thing it makes great reading. What I have always hated was that whole "If you challenge the dogpile [ by saying someone was being unfair, by protesting specific invective, by calling the dogpilers a bunch of vindictive bastards] You Don't Get Hell" bullshit that flourished for a while. Some people who actually had big brass balls were told that they were weak and soft and un- unrestful-- as if challenging a wagon circle isn't unrestful-- and that has always bothered the SJW in me. Especially since I suspect we lost some good ones while that was going on.
And now that I've hissed about it, it probably won't bother me any more. Glad I finally said it, though.
I'm glad you got that off your chest. How many years has it been?
Wait, you said you definitely, positively were not singling me out, and that me thinking so was nucking futz. Now you are saying you were.
What was particularly upsetting about me thanking SM for detaching that brilliant, insightful video by a genius comedian from whatever mind fuck she had going on at the time? As weird it might strike you, my post at that point was more about protecting Maria Bamford's good name than it was about SM at all.
Since you didn't reply to my direct "WTF did you read?" Query, then denied you were talking to me at all, then after a half a page FINALLY admitted something I said tripped your wire, I now wonder why you just didn't answer my question in the first place? Would have saved a lot of time.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
No, what you wear/do/go/drive clearly has been shown over history to have nothing to do with whether you are raped or not. (Nuns in their habits have been raped.) All a man's problems with his sex drive and abuse thereof reside solely, always, and forever until the end of time, with him and him alone. Being raped, accosted, groped, or catcalled is never the fault of the victim and always the fault of the perp, and it is important to never give an inch on this ever again.
You've got two things muddled here. This--"Being raped, accosted, groped, or catcalled is never the fault of the victim and always the fault of the perp," is obviously true. Like Duh. Nothing the victim did or could do would justify the least evil action of the perp. (I'm taking a break at work and had better not paint the gloriously over-the-top scenario that entered my head as an example of "still not asking for it.")
But your other sentence "what you wear/do/go/drive clearly has been shown over history to have nothing to do with whether you are raped or not" no, this is not in fact true. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU'ALL FLAME ME.
Certain clothing/actions/places are more likely to mark a human being (of either sex) out as a potential victim. Being drunk, frequenting certain neighborhoods, walking in an uncertain, I-might-be-lost way... this are red flags to muggers, rapists, etc.
We rightly teach our children (of both sexes) to avoid them IF POSSIBLE (which it isn't always-- (I walk this way because I have connective tissue problems; I live in this neighborhood and must walk in it; I am on medication (or have had a drink spiked) and appear drunk as a result.
There are also those who consider these precautions and say to themselves, "I refuse to change any of my choices just because some evil perp might get me--I insist on my personal freedoms." That is a valid choice as well and incurs no guilt or blame, even if everything goes badly wrong five minutes later.
It's true that taking precautions is a game of minimizing and not eliminating risk. Those who refuse to take any precautions whatsoever are making a valid choice and deserve no blame. Those others who do take precautions are also making a valid choice and deserve no blame. Those who teach such precautions to their children, students, etc. are merely trying to protect them, and as long as they themselves refuse to victim-blame under any circumstances, they deserve no blame either.
The only one who does deserve blame is the perp. And I'm sorry (this to the thread at large), but I don't think it's mostly a matter of ignorance to be remedied by education. Those who rape know they are doing wrong, regardless of whether they call it by that name or not. They simply refuse to change their evil choices. What is needed is not more information provided to them, but effective motivation. What form that motivation might take is very difficult to imagine.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Kelly: Your "thank you" post was my jumping-off point. If I had it to do over, I'd put in a paragraph break before the remark about the dogpile to make that more clear. I didn't deny I was talking to you at all. I said the dogpile bit was addressed more generally. I haven't said you're nutz or futz.
I don't like that SM's meanness is portrayed as a temporary mind fuck and quickly forgiven, when it has driven off a long-time shipmate. I think the treatment Twilight received deserves more care here than Maria Bamford's good name.
I didn't respond to your "WTF did you read?" query because I had other stuff to do and just didn't get to it. When I got back to this thread, it had moved on.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
You know LC, that sort of holds, except when it doesn't. And it leads to the thinking about what you can do to not put yourself at risk. Such that it you do take all of the suggested precautions and safety steps and still get attacked and raped, you then have to think of what additional thing you might have done. This is a difficult thinking trap.
Better is the thinking that there are are some special evil people who are rapists, and that this is no where near the number who are not. They are a minority. To large a minority, but a minority. And that these evil people need to be fully blamed, as we all agree, and that if we can do anything to influence even a few of these people to not do this evil, we should: We have to challenge anything that supports the evil. The behaviour of those attacked, what they wear and what they do etc is not part of that support of the evil. And we mustn't ever conflate that with the evil.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You know LC, that sort of holds, except when it doesn't. And it leads to the thinking about what you can do to not put yourself at risk. Such that it you do take all of the suggested precautions and safety steps and still get attacked and raped, you then have to think of what additional thing you might have done. This is a difficult thinking trap.
I think you're leaving out the part where she said the point is to minimize risk while recognizing that you won't eliminate it. I do think about not putting myself at risk, and I'm going to keep right on doing that.
quote:
Better is the thinking that there are are some special evil people who are rapists, and that this is no where near the number who are not. They are a minority. To large a minority, but a minority. And that these evil people need to be fully blamed, as we all agree, and that if we can do anything to influence even a few of these people to not do this evil, we should: We have to challenge anything that supports the evil. The behaviour of those attacked, what they wear and what they do etc is not part of that support of the evil. And we mustn't ever conflate that with the evil.
I don't think she is conflating the two. If you recognize that there are evil people out there, you're not taking responsibility for their behavior if you decide to take precautions against being subject to their behavior.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Part of the issue is the macho culture, the desire to be seen to be a "real man". Which lends itself to a real obvious comeback (that should work with the jocks at least):
"What, the only way you could get some is to force yourself on someone?". Even better if they pick on someone drunk, or use drugs to spike drinks. "You couldn't even physically overpower someone, and had to get them unconscious first?" Yeah, those are real butch, macho men there ...
Kick 'em in the ego. Might not hurt like getting kicked in the nuts, but being known as the jock who could only get "20 minutes of action" by forcing himself on someone lasts a lifetime.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't think she is conflating the two. If you recognize that there are evil people out there, you're not taking responsibility for their behavior if you decide to take precautions against being subject to their behavior.
You are probably correct; it's probably my perspective, not your's or her's. --From the perspective of knowing people who have been attacked and understanding how they struggle to sort out what they might have done to have avoided being attacked. It's a nasty thought process, and weirdly seems to involve almost trying to find something they were in control of in an attack so they can prevent a future risk.
I have thought the parallel is apt to the question post cyclist-car collision: "was the cyclist wearing a helmet?", or car-pedestrian: "were they texting/wearing ear phones (or otherwise distracted)?". When the real issue is that drivers need to stop hitting people with their cars.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
You can't take the thinking processes of a recently-attacked victim of rape and use those as the foundation for a logical claim. Of course a rape victim is going to seek something, anything, in his/her control that could have/should have/would have prevented the attack. That isn't logic, that's human emotion. Cancer patients do the same. My sister has spent way too much time agonizing about what she might have done to "cause" her cancer, and yet she is Miss Totally-Healthy-Poster-Child and her cancer is a rare one specifically known for being as unlikely as getting hit by a meteor.
There is simply nothing she could have done to prevent it. In the case of rape victims, there is simply nothing they SHOULD have done to prevent it (100% of the time) and generally nothing they COULD have done, either. A rapist's gonna rape, and virtually all of them are extremely capable of finding victims they can overpower in places that ought to have been safe.
So why do victims think this way? Because of a well-known human quirk whereby we strongly prefer to think we are in control of what happens to us, even when the universe has just made it painfully obvious that we aren't. Most of us would rather do anything, even blame ourselves for an evil committed against us, than admit that we had no control over the situation then, would have no control over the situation if it happened again in the future, and therefore we are not safe.
This is also what lies behind a lot of victim-blaming. If we (general we) blame the victim for doing or not doing something, we implicitly reassure ourselves that we will never undergo the same horrific experience, since we would never (fill in the blank with ridiculous supposedly-blamable action).
It takes a hell of a lot of maturity to admit that we are not actually in control of our own safety, and never can be. Most people never reach that point, even when they haven't just been put through a horrifying experience.
And so we blame ourselves and others, and search for control...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The only one who does deserve blame is the perp. And I'm sorry (this to the thread at large), but I don't think it's mostly a matter of ignorance to be remedied by education. Those who rape know they are doing wrong, regardless of whether they call it by that name or not. They simply refuse to change their evil choices. What is needed is not more information provided to them, but effective motivation. What form that motivation might take is very difficult to imagine.
Not all rape is the same. Date rape, spousal rape, those can be reduced. Changing the culture to where those are not considered OK is possible. Education isn't a formal curriculum only, example and culture teach also. We like to pretend that people are evil or good, it is easier. And whilst those people do exist, most of us live in the grey. Most "good" people are good out of circumstance, at least in part. Good by what society accepts. And that can be adjusted.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You can't take the thinking processes of a recently-attacked victim of rape and use those as the foundation for a logical claim. Of course a rape victim is going to seek something, anything, in his/her control that could have/should have/would have prevented the attack. That isn't logic, that's human emotion. Cancer patients do the same. My sister has spent way too much time agonizing about what she might have done to "cause" her cancer, and yet she is Miss Totally-Healthy-Poster-Child and her cancer is a rare one specifically known for being as unlikely as getting hit by a meteor.
There is simply nothing she could have done to prevent it. In the case of rape victims, there is simply nothing they SHOULD have done to prevent it (100% of the time) and generally nothing they COULD have done, either. A rapist's gonna rape, and virtually all of them are extremely capable of finding victims they can overpower in places that ought to have been safe.
So why do victims think this way? Because of a well-known human quirk whereby we strongly prefer to think we are in control of what happens to us, even when the universe has just made it painfully obvious that we aren't. Most of us would rather do anything, even blame ourselves for an evil committed against us, than admit that we had no control over the situation then, would have no control over the situation if it happened again in the future, and therefore we are not safe.
This is also what lies behind a lot of victim-blaming. If we (general we) blame the victim for doing or not doing something, we implicitly reassure ourselves that we will never undergo the same horrific experience, since we would never (fill in the blank with ridiculous supposedly-blamable action).
It takes a hell of a lot of maturity to admit that we are not actually in control of our own safety, and never can be. Most people never reach that point, even when they haven't just been put through a horrifying experience.
And so we blame ourselves and others, and search for control...
Helpful, thanks. More directly states what I am trying to and understand and to express.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Yes and it helps explain a range of similar behavior: eg trying to assess blame (either parents or Disney) re the gator attack on a small child last week. there are so many horrible things that can and do happen to innocent people. So we look for a pattern where there is none just to help ourselves cope with our fear
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I know a guy with lung cancer.
Everyone assumes he must have smoked.
Just saying, there's risk profile, and then there's the reality of individual events.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
My mother has lung cancer. They now have sorted the DNA of the various lung cancers, and were able to determine hers is the 'just happens' kind rather than the 'you smoked' variant.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
... though a nonsmoker can get the smoking variant simply by living or working with people smoking, and logically there's nothing to prevent a heavy smoker from developing the non-tobacco connected version. Or even both at once.
It's why the blame game is hardly ever right or wise.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, I'm not American and that seems to be your criterion for permission to comment on this thread. Apparently if we're not American we can't understand things sufficiently.
Oh good grief. I wasn't trying to set up parameters for who has permission to post on this thread. I was trying to understand why there was an almost complete disconnect between what I read Twilight as saying and what others on the thread read her as saying. I was speculating that it may be because we are reacting to the different RL cultures we experience on a daily basis.
quote:
But, I'm also one of those you seem to think have been saying we shouldn't be giving advice about being careful. Just for the record, I've no objection at all to giving sensible advice.
In terms of this thread, my main argument is with Soror Magna for asking when we're going to teach men to stop raping (which we already do) as a response to any advice to women to take sensible precautions. I run into this IRL all the time and find it extremely frustrating, as it seems like their are a lot of people who are willing to sacrifice women's and girls' safety on the altar of ideology and how they think the world should be rather than how it actually is.
Obviously what counts as a sensible precaution is going to vary according to cultural context and expectations. There may be those in Muslim countries who view not wearing a burka as an excuse to rape; on the other hand there are those who live in nudist colonies who are very clear on the fact that being naked is not an invitation to be sexual or an excuse to rape.
quote:
My second concern, that others made more clearly, was that once you start issuing guidance on behaviour then those who fail to follow that advice get labelled as "asking for it". Victim blaming is not helpful, indeed quite the opposite. Young women going to a party should be able to wear what they want, they should be able to drink what they want, they should be able to walk home at the end of the night without anyone saying that they're asking to be assaulted.
I agree that victim blaming is never helpful, but how do you issue sensible advice to teens who may very well need it (because their parents for whatever reason are incapable of giving it to them) when some proportion of the population is going to fly into hysterics and read any advice as victim blaming?
I also seriously question the feminist dogma that there are huge numbers of people walking around saying that victims of crime (including rape) were 'asking for it.'
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Why is it in a different category? It is a behavioural choice just like alcohol and staggering home drunk are.
Seriously?
You know, as long as you're not running afoul of any indecent exposure laws, there's no law against dressing any particular way and driving a car. There is a law against drinking and driving. Why the difference? Because what you are wearing or not wearing makes no difference to your ability to make sound judgments, evaluate situations, and take steps to remove yourself from a potentially dangerous situation, etc. Drinking alcohol, particularly to excess, does change your ability to do those things.
quote:
I suggest the different reaction is because commenting on clothing choices is far more often associated with "dressed like a slut, deserved it" and is more likely to carry judgemental overtones.
Is this really a thing? Because as much as I've been encouraged to dress relatively modestly (with what counts as 'modest' varying widely according to what social circle I'm moving in) I've honestly never in my life heard someone say that someone say that someone deserves to be sexually assaulted because of the way they were dressed (and I'm talking about RL here, not what some whacko in another country who wants to implement sharia law thinks). I know it's a point of feminist dogma that a lot of people do in fact think this (see Slutwalk), but if were that common in the US, you'd think I'd have run into it. Do I just travel in really bizarre social circles; is it really that common a thing for people to say in other social circles?
Lamb Chopped:
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Why is it in a different category? It is a behavioural choice just like alcohol and staggering home drunk are.
Seriously?
You know, as long as you're not running afoul of any indecent exposure laws, there's no law against dressing any particular way and driving a car. There is a law against drinking and driving.
How exactly did you convert "staggering home drunk" into driving? If someone said "staggering" to me, not only would I not think get a mental image of driving, I would explicitly think of being on foot.
You know, as long as you're not doing something you shouldn't like driving, there's no law against drinking. That would actually be a better second half of your analogy.
[ 18. June 2016, 04:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Thanks. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Sadly, there are those who seem to think dress choices play a role in rape, though like you, I've never heard anyone say it to my face--probably because they could see my hand itching to slap someone. But you'll run across it in the comments section in practically every news article about rape, and they can't all of them be hypocritical trolls, can they? Only 90% or so?
More to the point, dress is an issue often leapt upon by those who are doing their damndest to excuse the evil behavior of a son, father, brother, or client (and who are widely reported by the newspapers saying this shit, of course).
It's also an easy handle for anyone trying to draw a clear bright line of safety between themselves and "that person" who got raped, because of the superstitious conviction I mentioned before--that, if you only try hard enough, you can avoid ever having any horrible evil happen to you. And fashion is so easily observed, isn't it? So for the average idiot Y who is desperately looking for a "cause" of rape that will explain why X got raped without at the same time admitting it could happen to Y herself just as easily,--well, how easy is it to just say "it's that hat she was wearing, I would never be caught dead in a hat like that" (unspoken: so I must be safe, right?). If it isn't the hat, it's the dangly earrings, the skirt (showing her ankles, whoo hoo!), the fetching tattoo on the kneecap, the fact that she's bald and that's such a come-on, isn't it--really, a person desperately determined to find a difference between "me" and "her" will have a field day with dress. Because dress will always provide you with something. Even uniforms will, as you can always find SOME difference in the way the sleeves hang or whatever.
The last reason why dress is such a widespread though stupid issue when people are rape blaming is because there are still idiot parents and teachers who use the fear of rape as a way to try to scare their little darlings into dressing as they wish them to. And you have to admit, it's a pretty scary threat. Though complete and utter bullshit.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How exactly did you convert "staggering home drunk" into driving? If someone said "staggering" to me, not only would I not think get a mental image of driving, I would explicitly think of being on foot.
Dear lord. Is hell running a workshop series on how to miss the point?
Point being that how a person dresses does not affect their judgment, while alcohol consumption (particularly excessive alcohol consumption) is known to do so. They may both be behavioral choices, but they are in different categories.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How exactly did you convert "staggering home drunk" into driving? If someone said "staggering" to me, not only would I not think get a mental image of driving, I would explicitly think of being on foot.
Dear lord. Is hell running a workshop series on how to miss the point?
Point being that how a person dresses does not affect their judgment, while alcohol consumption (particularly excessive alcohol consumption) is known to do so. They may both be behavioral choices, but they are in different categories.
Sure, I accept that.
But if you think that was the point you were making with your previous post let me assure you were doing a poor job of it by throwing in something that had nothing to do with the "staggering home drunk" post you were allegedly replying to.
[ 18. June 2016, 05:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Well of course there are lots of differences between getting drunk and choosing clothes.
We could list lots of category differences if we were on a circus thread - drinks are in the group of sometimes fizzy things, clothes very rarely are. Drinks don't last as long as clothing choices (except at some very exciting parties that I've only ever heard about).
So clearly I'm aware that there are some differences.
The question is whether any of these put it in a different moral category for purposes of victim blaming. Sure being drunk affects your judgement, but I don't see why that makes it a thing which might or might not be victim blaming whereas clothing choice comments always are.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Sadly, there are those who seem to think dress choices play a role in rape, though like you, I've never heard anyone say it to my face
Likewise I've occasionally read it in comments sections but rarely heard it said directly - but often heard it implied. Back to dog-whistles.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Is this really a thing? Because as much as I've been encouraged to dress relatively modestly (with what counts as 'modest' varying widely according to what social circle I'm moving in) I've honestly never in my life heard someone say that someone say that someone deserves to be sexually assaulted because of the way they were dressed (and I'm talking about RL here, not what some whacko in another country who wants to implement sharia law thinks). I know it's a point of feminist dogma that a lot of people do in fact think this (see Slutwalk), but if were that common in the US, you'd think I'd have run into it. Do I just travel in really bizarre social circles; is it really that common a thing for people to say in other social circles?
I served on a jury for a rape trial many years ago where this was the entire defense: The victim, who had gone out for pizza with friends, was wearing a casual dress but no pantyhose. In L.A. in August (as I said in the jury room: I don't wear pantyhose to
church in triple-digit L.A. August, much less out for casual pizza dinner). The defense attorney explicitly argued that the way she was dressed meant she was consenting to intercourse (despite physical evidence that there was a struggle).
Now this was many years ago, I certainly hope that this sort of argument would not be presented in a court today. But it was presented then-- w/o objection by DA or judge-- in a court of law. And it was surprisingly, distressingly effective. One woman on the jury in particular found the argument very persuasive and had to be reminded of the physical evidence time & time again to convince her (and avoid a hung jury). After she finally agreed to vote "guilty" she said, "I just wish we could do something to punish her as well".
Cuz yeah, getting raped wasn't enough.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Now this was many years ago, I certainly hope that this sort of argument would not be presented in a court today. But it was presented then-- w/o objection by DA or judge-- in a court of law. And it was surprisingly, distressingly effective.
It is done differently now, more subtly, but it still remains. It remains in the courts and it remains in the minds of the public. And this is why what we say and how we say it is important.
And this is why I am trying like hell to keep my discourse civil when I would rather sharpen my fingernails and carve my words in reverse on people's faces so that they would read them every morning of every day when they look in the mirror.
Gods I wish that was hyperbole.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Now this was many years ago, I certainly hope that this sort of argument would not be presented in a court today. But it was presented then-- w/o objection by DA or judge-- in a court of law. And it was surprisingly, distressingly effective.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is done differently now, more subtly, but it still remains.
Exactly. The idea is so clearly in the public consciousness we only need dog whistles these days.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know that using SJW as an insult was devised by people who would see you, as a woman, have no rights? Those who would see people of colour as second-class citizens?
Bullshit.
Really? Then give me examples of people who use it and still support women's equality, minority equality, efforts to lift people out of poverty, etc.
Me.
I am a feminist, and I'm about to vote for the Greens in my election because of their support of asylum seekers, marriage equality, and homeless people. I also, on occasion, use "SJW" as a term for a really over-the-top strain of behaviour that appears to me to be fundamentalism in reverse ("you must agree with liberal orthodoxy, with all these specifics, or else you will be shunned as a horrible human being").
You don't have to approve of the label. But it's not used solely by people who don't "support women's equality, minority equality, efforts to lift people out of poverty, etc." Stop dismissing people you disagree with by stereotyping them.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You know that using SJW as an insult was devised by people who would see you, as a woman, have no rights? Those who would see people of colour as second-class citizens?
Bullshit.
Really? Then give me examples of people who use it and still support women's equality, minority equality, efforts to lift people out of poverty, etc.
Me.
I am a feminist, and I'm about to vote for the Greens in my election because of their support of asylum seekers, marriage equality, and homeless people. I also, on occasion, use "SJW" as a term for a really over-the-top strain of behaviour that appears to me to be fundamentalism in reverse ("you must agree with liberal orthodoxy, with all these specifics, or else you will be shunned as a horrible human being").
Fair enough. Three are people who do use the term without attacking the ideals. And I was incorrect as to its origin; it appears, like PC, to have begun as a lefty word and hijacked by (mainly) its opponents. But it is still a pejorative which attempts to limit positive interaction.
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Stop dismissing people you disagree with by stereotyping them.
I'm dismissing saysay's argument, not so much her. Were I dismissing her, I would be directing invective, rather than engaging her.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Really? Then give me examples of people who use it and still support women's equality, minority equality, efforts to lift people out of poverty, etc.
In terms of writers and bloggers - Scott Greenfield, Popehat, Robby Soave (and the other editors at Reason), Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Summers... I could go on but really there are too many. As St. Deird says, it's a handy label to affix to people displaying OTT behavior. Being in favor of social justice in broad terms doesn't make you a SJW and more than being Christian means you automatically support Westboro Baptist. As for it being a pejorative that attempts to limit positive interaction - perhaps we are not speaking of the same people. There is no positive interaction with an SJW. Just lies, insults, threats, and victimization.
quote:
As far as the study, show me a link that is not from a "men's rights" site, and we'll talk.
Psychology Today. Washington Exminer. Washington Examiner.
And those are just the things within the first five google results.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Being in favor of social justice in broad terms doesn't make you a SJW and more than being Christian means you automatically support Westboro Baptist. As for it being a pejorative that attempts to limit positive interaction - perhaps we are not speaking of the same people. There is no positive interaction with an SJW. Just lies, insults, threats, and victimization.
.
This sounds very similar to the "is there such a thing as 'dog-whistles'" discussion.
There certainly is no doubt that some social justice folks can be OTT. And I suppose every group of people will have some members who will lie, insult, threaten, and/or victimize others. So if you feel the need to have a term for those who do that within the context of social justice, sure, fair 'nuff. As with "dog-whistle" it sounds like something we can all recognize can happen, but identifying any particular interaction as an example of "SJW" will inherently be subjective and impossible to prove for much the same reasons as with dog-whistling.
iow, to parse the irregular verb: I am prophetic, you are strident, she is an SJW.
[ 19. June 2016, 22:07: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Scott Greenfield,
Who?
quote:
Popehat,
A website without a relevant focus? One step up from just saying the internet
quote:
Robby Soave
His stock and trade appears to be being offended by people who are offended.
quote:
Cathy Young,
Borderline mens-rights apologist
quote:
Christina Hoff Summers...
NOt without criticism of her own reasoning and methodology.
quote:
As St. Deird says, it's a handy label to affix to people displaying OTT behavior.
It is an ad hominum which attempts to end conversation rather than engage in discussion.
quote:
And those are just the things within the first five google results.
Your first link questions the methodology of the study, which is a reasonable thing to do. However, the author refutes assumptions with his own assumptions, rather than with solid logic.
The second link reads more like a hit piece than a refutation.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is an ad hominum which attempts to end conversation rather than engage in discussion.
Which is precisely what I thought of your instantly dismissing the term as something that only horrible people use.
"Oh, you said SJW? Clearly, you are against everything I support and can be dismissed forthwith."
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Fine, if I then failed to continue conversation and addressing points. But I have not.
And I said the term is used to end conversation, I have not accused either you or saysay of doing so.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
I'm sorry. Your original question didn't indicate the criteria one must meet before being allowed to use or comment on the use of 'SJW'. You wanted examples of people who use the term SJW without opposing equal rights for women and minorities. I provided some off the top of my head.
So who gets to have an opinion on this subject?
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One step up from just saying the internet
And so what if I did say the internet or quoted the urban dictionary definition of SJW? I'm a descriptivist when it comes to language; I was taught that words don't mean, words mean what people mean when people use words. Who are you granting the authority to define the term 'SJW' to (since it's obviously not people in general)?
quote:
quote:
As St. Deird says, it's a handy label to affix to people displaying OTT behavior.
It is an ad hominum which attempts to end conversation rather than engage in discussion.
Well, it doesn't look like we're going to agree on this, unless you can produce some strong evidence that the term SJW is (and is only) an ad hominem used by people attempting to end conversation rather than engage in discussion.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
It is an ad hominum which attempts to end conversation rather than engage in discussion.
Well, it doesn't look like we're going to agree on this, unless you can produce some strong evidence that the term SJW is (and is only) an ad hominem used by people attempting to end conversation rather than engage in discussion. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Aren't you being a bit disingenuous? There may or may not be people who's behavior qualifies them to be dismissed with a perforative "SJW". But your own description of SJW certainly doesn't sound like you're using it to engage discussion:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
There is no positive interaction with an SJW. Just lies, insults, threats, and victimization.
[ 20. June 2016, 03:11: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
ack-- sorry, tried to fix the code but missed the edit window. : (
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I'm sorry. Your original question didn't indicate the criteria one must meet before being allowed to use or comment on the use of 'SJW'. You wanted examples of people who use the term SJW without opposing equal rights for women and minorities. I provided some off the top of my head.
You provided a list which is marginal, at best.
quote:
So who gets to have an opinion on this subject?
I didn't list a criteria of who is allowed to use the term.
Anyone can use any term, but no one should expect to be derisive without challenge.
quote:
And so what if I did say the internet or quoted the urban dictionary definition of SJW? I'm a descriptivist when it comes to language; I was taught that words don't mean, words mean what people mean when people use words. Who are you granting the authority to define the term 'SJW' to (since it's obviously not people in general)?
So far we have St. Deird. And several dubious persons. So your rebuttal is hardly obvious.
quote:
Well, it doesn't look like we're going to agree on this, unless you can produce some strong evidence that the term SJW is (and is only) an ad hominem used by people attempting to end conversation rather than engage in discussion.
SJW is a perfect example of an Ad Hominem: Abusive argument no matter who uses it.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
That post. I'm sorry, I can't even...
If an SJW ever actually made an argument instead of simply hurling nasty insults at people, they might find people who are willing to engage with their arguments. That they don't actually make arguments is one of the defining features of an SJW.
So in that sense cliffdweller is sort-of right that my previous statement was somewhat disingenuous. Except IME 'SJW' isn't a term that's used to shut down discussion because no conversation was happening in the first place.
Now, would you care to provide any evidence for your claims? Because if you're going to continue to argue by assertion, we might as well drop the subject.
[ 20. June 2016, 04:14: Message edited by: saysay ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I'm sorry, I can't even...
This has been apparent for some time, though I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
My bad.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
I suggest the different reaction is because commenting on clothing choices is far more often associated with "dressed like a slut, deserved it" and is more likely to carry judgemental overtones.
Is this really a thing? Because as much as I've been encouraged to dress relatively modestly (with what counts as 'modest' varying widely according to what social circle I'm moving in) I've honestly never in my life heard someone say that someone say that someone deserves to be sexually assaulted because of the way they were dressed (and I'm talking about RL here, not what some whacko in another country who wants to implement sharia law thinks). I know it's a point of feminist dogma that a lot of people do in fact think this (see Slutwalk), but if were that common in the US, you'd think I'd have run into it. Do I just travel in really bizarre social circles; is it really that common a thing for people to say in other social circles?
It seems common enough that Brock Turner's (remember Brock Turner?) defense team made a point of asking his victim "What were you wearing?" They seemed to think the answer would potentially relieve their client of some culpability for his actions. Given his sentence, maybe they were right.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Judge Persky has become radioactive:
quote:
After this and the recent turn of events, we lack confidence that Judge Persky can fairly participate in this upcoming hearing in which a male nurse sexually assaulted an anesthetized female patient. This is a rare and carefully considered step for our Office. In the future, we will evaluate each case on its own merits and decide if we should use our legal right to ask for another judge in order to protect public safety and pursue justice.
(Emphasis on sickening irony mine)
Yes, it's completely reasonable to believe that Judge Persky doesn't take assaults on unconscious people very seriously. In addition, at least 20 potential jurors have refused to serve in his court.
And the cherry on top is that Turner will probably be out in 3 months, not 6
Posted by Egeria (# 4517) on
:
Maybe Brock Turner's parents and Judge Persky really think that he's just a nice, innocent guy who made one mistake and isn't a danger to society--but his teammates apparently knew better. His male teammates had talked to him about curbing the drink, the parties, etc., and his female teammates thought he was a creep (inappropriate personal remarks) and didn't want to be around him.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
When he gets out, his parents might want to consider a) getting him into rehab and therapy (if he's to have any chance of turning around--or, as they might see it, for the public relations optics); b) getting him a bodyguard, given the way people rightfully feel about him; and/or c) getting him a "sober companion" (like Joan in "Elementary"), or simply a keeper.
Is he legally bound to stay away from Ms. Doe, who he assaulted? If not, get a restraining order in place before he gets out.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
If only there were a place that he could stay that would inform him his actions were wrong, keep an eye on him and keep him way from her.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Yup.
With any luck, his case will be reviewed before he gets out, given the negative attention the judge is getting.
[ 21. June 2016, 06:48: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Amongst the many articles I've read about Brock Turner I think I read somewhere that he was appealing the sentence. Can anyone confirm this ( or was it just something I misread? or speculation? or one of my fantasies?).
Would he be running the risk of an increased sentence? I remember this happening to someone in NZ, but countries vary.
Huia
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Amongst the many articles I've read about Brock Turner I think I read somewhere that he was appealing the sentence. Can anyone confirm this ( or was it just something I misread? or speculation? or one of my fantasies?).
Would he be running the risk of an increased sentence? I remember this happening to someone in NZ, but countries vary.
Huia
His lawyers said he was appealing at the sentencing and I don't know whether it was for sentence or conviction, but, I suspect it may have been a necessity to state that then to keep the option open. I don't know what the timeline is for actually filing the necessary paperwork. I suspect the bit they would like removed at a minimum is having to be a registered sex offender. They may change their minds about appealing especially just on the sentence given the increased notoriety of the case and might look for clemency at some later point.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
... I agree that victim blaming is never helpful, but how do you issue sensible advice to teens who may very well need it (because their parents for whatever reason are incapable of giving it to them) when some proportion of the population is going to fly into hysterics and read any advice as victim blaming?...
By giving sensible advice to both boys AND girls. For every parental conversation about "girls should be careful about how much they drink", there should be a corresponding "son, never force yourself upon a girl" conversation. That is really all I'm asking for. Really. Talk to both boys AND girls. It's not too much to ask for, is it?
(And I hope this doesn't come as a disappointment, but SJW doesn't really sting - my grandmother was a pinko commie and my aunt was a bleeding-heart liberal.)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Picky picky, but those two don't correspond. My son is getting both of those conversations.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The PSE curriculum I teach and am now persuading others to teach has units on:
- drugs education which includes discussions on:
- the damage alcohol does, both socially and physically, and we would talk about things like unwanted sexual contact, beer goggles, dangers might walk into when drunk - we had stories of friends getting killed on stag weekends or falling into rivers and nearly dying, unreliability at work, losing jobs and homes,
- the law on alcohol consumption,
- recommended drinking levels and
- the dangers of binge drinking,
(it also includes tobacco and drug abuse, both legal and illegal) andsex and relationships, which includes discussions on consent (age of consent, what it means) and the repercussions of sex (STIs, pregnancy). This is a mainstream qualification for 14-16 year olds. We are mostly teaching boys, very few girls in this environment.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
While I agree that such education is very important, learning involves integrating information from many different sources over time. Unfortunately, some sources (like the result in this case) don't always reinforce what we are trying to teach.
When I was on an all-male forestry crew in Alaska we were discussing an incident were someone had been "mooned" by two women, and one of the guys claimed that was sufficient provocation that he could force them to have sex without it being considered rape. That might have been the common perception of the friends he hung out with back home, but he was flabbergasted and speechless when the rest of use disagreed with him in the very strongest terms. It wasn't that he hadn't been told that rape was a bad thing, but he had been in an environment that supported the view that forced sex really wasn't "rape" if the "woman was asking for it."
That's an important aspect of this fight - generating enough public outcry to try to try to counter the effect of the verdict on men's perceptions of what is acceptable behavior.
Did it actually change his mind? Probably not, but his face showed signs of cognitive dissonance for the better part of a week. But then, he came from one of those wild and uncivilized states on the fringe of the country where rude and/or unacceptable behavior is commonplace... New Jersey.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
That's an important aspect of this fight - generating enough public outcry to try to try to counter the effect of the verdict on men's perceptions of what is acceptable behavior.
yes. Education goes beyond the claasroom. I wonder if your Alaskan crewmate would consider a male "asking for sex" if mooning him? Or would accept being raped if he himself mooned another male? Or, if he mooned a female, would he accept a foreign object rammed up his rectum as being OK, because he was "asking for it"?
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Meanwhile, changing the subject but not the outrage, this verdict just came in.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
One of the things that bothered me deeply during that rape trial years ago involving the high school girl who was assaulted while intoxicated was when I brought it up to my then- teenaged nephews. Judging how they began to respond at first, the boys seemed t be expecting me to launch into a mournful lament about those poor maligned boys who were just copping a feel like any boy would. They looked shocked when I began expressing anger and despair at how an incapacitated girl was abused.
So yeah, there is an imbalance in how we teach boys about rape and how we teach girls about rape. Girls get the safety lectures, the key- carrying tips, the self- defence workshops. Boys get told, " If a girl tells you "No," you STOP. No excuses." And the boys nod soberly.
But while we are teaching that, groupthink is teaching them stuff like:
The purpose of a date is to get as close to sex as possible, and you will be evaluated as such. ( First base, second base...)
The purpose of parties is to " pull/ hook up" whatever, after which see above.
If you don't take opportunities for sex when they arise, something must be wrong with you.
The only important factor in consent is a verbal " No, " so paying attention to your partners moods, demeanor,enthusiasm level, etc is optional.
Teaching then to respect the word " no" is so, so inadequate in dealing with the above.
The crewman story reminded me of a documentary I saw years ago about the train that runs from South America to Mexico, and the unaccompanied who ride it to get closer to the
US border. First of all, several preteen girls were interviewed, grimly stating that they all took birth control before making the trip, because they were pretty much told to prepare themselves to be jumped. That was bad enough, but almost worse was the twelve year old boy who giggled as he told the off camera interviewer about witnessing a woman being gang raped in a cattle car. He dropped his voice to an excited whisper, and a grin began to spread on his face, but his face drastically changed when the interviewer fell silent, and he answered further questions in a sober and horrified tone. I am guessing the look on the interviewers face is what changed the boy's.
And that is what I have concluded is the real frontline-- that place where boys gather together to bond under predetermined "what makes a man" tropes. Every woman in the world could share her rape story, and as long as groups of boys/ men work under the assumption that theirs is the final word on what constitutes rape, not much will change.As the crewman story and the young rape witness demonstrates, the right people challenging rape culture at the right time can have a benevolently catastrophic effect.
As for the boy himself-- the five or six other boys he traveled with went on to have relatively functional, if difficult, lives. He went on to develop a crippling heroin addiction. Since he was the one kid in the group trapped in a car with a bunch of rapists, I sense their may be a connection.
[ 23. June 2016, 21:35: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Meanwhile, changing the subject but not the outrage, this verdict just came in.
I made a new thread so this doesn't get lost.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
But while we are teaching that, groupthink is teaching them stuff like:
The purpose of a date is to get as close to sex as possible, and you will be evaluated as such. ( First base, second base...)
The purpose of parties is to " pull/ hook up" whatever, after which see above.
If you don't take opportunities for sex when they arise, something must be wrong with you.
The only important factor in consent is a verbal " No, " so paying attention to your partners moods, demeanor,enthusiasm level, etc is optional.
Teaching then to respect the word " no" is so, so inadequate in dealing with the above.
This.
In the rape trial I mentioned above, the most telling piece of evidence by far was the defendant's own testimony. I'm pretty sure the victim was being truthful-- but even if she wasn't and the defendant was completely, 100% honest, his version of the events, which included at one point the victim pulling a knife on him to get him off of her-- could not even remotely be considered consensual. And yet he gave his testimony as if expecting that would turn the whole thing around and we'd see his side-- when in fact it did the complete opposite.
Clearly the groupthink had not served him well.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Brava, Kelly.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Judge Persky strikes again:
quote:
... Ramirez was arrested at his home in Santa Clara County in November 2014 after his roommate called 911 to say that he had sexually assaulted her, according to police reports.
Ramirez gave the woman a “love letter” and later entered her bedroom and fingered her for about five to 10 minutes against her will, according to a police report, and stopped only when she started crying.
When police arrived, he admitted to the assault. “Ramirez knew what he did was wrong and he wanted to say sorry,” one officer wrote.
... According to records of the plea deal that Persky oversaw, Ramirez agreed to plead guilty to a felony of sexual penetration by force. Under the terms of the deal, he will spend three years in state prison, the minimum punishment for the offense. ... Ramirez, like Turner, has no criminal record of convictions for serious or violent felonies, according to court records.
Because Ramirez ultimately pleaded guilty to a felony offense that does not have an option for probation or a lighter sentence, Persky was limited in the sentence he could approve for the specific conviction. ...
Bullshit. The limits didn't apply to a privileged drunk white boy who still doesn't think he did anything wrong. In the article, it says that:
quote:
... Judge Persky handled the hearings and negotiations in the Ramirez case, according to Santa Clara county prosecutors. ... Specifically, Persky could have approved or helped negotiate a bargain in which Ramirez only pleaded guilty to the lesser of two charges he was facing – assault with intent to commit rape. If the more serious charge was dropped – as was the case with Turner, who had two rape charges dropped – Ramirez could have potentially avoided prison.
White privilege doesn't mean Judge Persky sits in his chambers rubbing his hands together with glee at the thought of sending more brown people to jail. It means that when Judge Persky looks at Turner, he sees a brilliant, talented college boy who made a drunken mistake, and will figure out a way to give him a break so his whole future isn't destroyed, poor baby. When he looks at Ramirez, he sees a criminal who assaulted his roommate and deserves to go to jail, and it's not Persky's problem if he can't get employment or housing because of his record.
Stanford trial judge overseeing much harsher sentence for similar assault case
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Under the terms of the deal, he will spend three years in state prison, the minimum punishment for the offense.
This is what should happen. Ramirez was sentenced appropriately. This is also what should have happened to Turner. But he got the white college boy pass.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
Part of the discrepancy was that there are apparently differing penalties in California for sexual penetration by force [of a conscious person] from sexual penetration of someone who is unconscious or intoxicated. The former has a 3 year mandatory minimum, the latter does not. Some lawmakers are trying to change the law so the latter has the same mandatory minimum. Also Turner's rape charges were dropped because the prosecutor didn't think they could prove it (and probably couldn't) not because of a plea bargain. BTW it is generally the prosecutor and the defendant who negotiate a plea bargain; the judge's options are limited especially if there is a mandatory minimum.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Bullshit.
quote:
But critics say that Persky, a former Stanford athlete himself, bent over backwards to make an exception in the Turner case, and that if he wanted to give Ramirez the same favorable treatment, the judge could have utilized his discretion and recommended a less harsh prosecution.
Specifically, Persky could have approved or helped negotiate a bargain in which Ramirez only pleaded guilty to the lesser of two charges he was facing – assault with intent to commit rape. If the more serious charge was dropped – as was the case with Turner, who had two rape charges dropped – Ramirez could have potentially avoided prison.
He was right not to be lenient to Ramirez, he was wrong to be lenient to Turner.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
And we're back. What the ever-living fuck?
[ 20. October 2016, 01:36: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on
:
Excellent work by the girl's mother and grandmother, as well. Bloody hell.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kittyville:
Excellent work by the girl's mother and grandmother, as well. Bloody hell.
From the article:
“No one spoke on behalf of the 12 year old child at trial,” it read. “No one. The victim was not given justice, but instead will have to live with the fear that she still has to face her rapist in their community. ”
Sometimes when I am having a moment of grieving over my childlessness, I exacerbate things by meditating on the fact that some kids are stuck with parents like this. Jesus, the poor girl.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I feel sick.
And I find myself recalling stuff, some of it from the West case in Gloucester, some hinted at by a colleague who was a juror in a familial abuse case, excused any further service because of the material witnessed, some I've read somewhere.
Fred West grew up with the idea that fathers initiated their daughters into sex, because that is what his family did, and what his father taught him. Those boys need to be removed from their father now. It may well be too late. They do not need any further education from him.
I have read of women who pushed their daughters towards their husband, because his 'needs' must be satisfied, and they were too tired, too damaged, to do it any more.
I have known of a mother who defended her abusive son, fighting for him to keep custody of his son, after he had raped his wife, and 'given' her over to his friends.
Dysfunctional is too nice a word for these people. They would probably shock a family of bonobos.
The girl needs a sanctuary somewhere - a comment suggested keeping the siblings together. This should not be done. The boys cannot be seen as untainted.
60 days? Are they mad in that state?
[ 22. October 2016, 15:30: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
There's a move to get that judge off the bench.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
He's actually up for retirement in a couple months, anyway. There is a move to deny his pension. It is due to be set before the county clerk sometime in December.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I saw, in passing, a headline for another similar case. IIRC, the guy got over 1000 years. (Consecutive sentencing.)
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
The judge? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
LOL. I thought of that, afterwards. Perhaps we could put the judge in with the 1000 yrs. guy?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0