For anyone stupid enough to be a feminist....

[Deleted member 457759]

You make it sound like feminism is some monolithic organization.... it is not


I've been consistent going back years that this road of #believeallvictims is a dangerous road , even Bill Cosby deserves due process and his day in court , trying to lay a case like this at the feet of feminism is overly simplistic.

Feminism isn't a monolithic organization, but it's ideology is incredibly stict to the point of religious orthodoxy and piety. Wrong think and speak is viciously attacked. It's a hive mentality funded by Oligarchs.

Cases like this absolutely have feminsm to thank.

 

[WTF2008]

What fucking moron would think a dude would be continuously raping a girl for over a year. This was so obviously a case of pissed off girl.

It's almost like getting accused of pedophilia 40 years later and losing an election because of it.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Feminism isn't a monolithic organization, but it's ideology is incredibly stict to the point of religious orthodoxy and piety. Wrong think and speak is viciously attacked. It's a hive mentality funded by Oligarchs.

Cases like this absolutely have feminsm to thank.

This might be the wrong thread for you , I remember you saying " rape is no big deal "


And oligarchs? Lol that must be quite the rabbit hole

 

[grimballer]

Some idiots here will still argue that “victims” are not aware of their actions n will try to seduce their “rapist” n them inviting the rapist to have sex is in reality them trying to deal with being victim of rape

 

[Deleted member 457759]

This might be the wrong thread for you , I remember you saying " rape is no big deal "


And oligarchs? Lol that must be quite the rabbit hole

O wow, you're putting words into my mouth. Sure you're not taking something out of context there?

Keep up the good work.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

O wow, you're putting words into my mouth. Sure you're not taking something out of context there?

Keep up the good work.

No you said it , it was in my sig for awhile actually and I told you it was so you knew it was there .

 

[tonni]

Absolutely. Especially considering the number of morons out there susceptible to group-think. Plus, history as show things to be reevaluated from time to time. If you're not up to an intelligent response due to knowing what you know because of conditioning and not reasoning then I understand.

You asked a dumb, loaded question. Don't pretend there was much thought behind it.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

No you said it , it was in my sig for awhile actually and I told you it was so you knew it was there .

yea i remember thinking, "What a dishonest idiot for taking that obviously sarcastic quote and disingenuously presented it as serious". Totally desperate move on your part in retaliation to me triggering you.

Pathetic.

 

[WTF2008]

I'm going to assume you mean Western countries.

I'd say the fact that most rapists get away with rape, the fact that the vast majority of rapists are men, domestic violence, in some countries (USA) abortion rights. Probably some more stuff I or anyone could care about.

None Western countries (Muslim Majority): Forced circumcision, child marriage, forced prostitution etc.

Doesn't mean you have to agree with everything in modern (liberal) feminism. There's plenty of schools of thoughts, the SJW transgender part is just the loudest.

Do you think sexual harassment in the workplace is an issue btw?

At least you included males in there. Most men only get financially raped.

 

[Exception]

What the fuck does this have to do with feminism?

Listen and believe. Pig.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Basically just saying its largely he said she said.

The regardless of legal outcome neither party suddenly becomes vindicated.

True.

But sadly even in cases where the woman is out and out busted for fabricating the story she is never punished and the man tends to still pay a steep price in terms of reputational and career damage. In fact we often see still see the women celebrated as brave for coming out behind a lie. Which is a suggestion that they only lost because the system was against them which is completely false. the system has swung way to far out of balance into their favour. And in Canada as pointed out in the video upthread they are trying to change the law to make it much harder for a guy to defense himself using email, text and video evidence showing the woman was the aggressor in the relationship to ensure more guys do not escape the charges by submitting real evidence based on this idea that it must be the system and the way it recognizes evidence that is causing these women's cases to fail.

Do you think in cases where it is provable the women fabricated, like the 3 in this thread, the women should be charged?

 

[MikeMcMann]

That's an easy one. Feminism has been actively campaigning, successfully I might add, to obliterate due process from the sexual assault discussion.

There you have it.

Yup. People need to watch this video to see where Liberal sympathies can dangerously lead.

This is a clear case of seeking confirmation bias. They go in assuming these women are always victims and that only a biased patriarchy is denying them justice and therefore they must restrict the defendant's ability to use past history (email, texts, video's) as a defense as effectively.


[/QUOTE]

'See, look how many men are now guilty now that those defenses cannot be used as effectively. We knew we were correct and it was a biased system allowing them to escape justice'
(my estimation of what they would say or be thinking with increased convictions)

 

[HIMBOB]

True.

But sadly even in cases where the woman is out and out busted for fabricating the story she is never punished and the man tends to still pay a steep price in terms of reputational and career damage. In fact we often see still see the women celebrated as brave for coming out behind a lie. Which is a suggestion that they only lost because the system was against them which is completely false. the system has swung way to far out of balance into their favour. And in Canada as pointed out in the video upthread they are trying to change the law to make it much harder for a guy to defense himself using email, text and video evidence showing the woman was the aggressor in the relationship to ensure more guys do not escape the charges by submitting real evidence based on this idea that it must be the system and the way it recognizes evidence that is causing these women's cases to fail.

Do you think in cases where it is provable the women fabricated, like the 3 in this thread, the women should be charged?

I don't know the story.

But i will say you can rape someone who wanted to have sex with you, you can rape your wife or GF. Further that they stayed after doesn't prove you innocent.

As i said its a fucked up he said she said. I don't think it is valid to pretend supposed victims or accused doesn't suffer from that nature.

If however you can prove that the accusations were vexatious then yes you should charge people. But i think it should be a high bar of proof to do all reasonable to ensure you don't jail a rape victim simply because they couldn't afford the lawyers their rapist could.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

yea i remember thinking, "What a dishonest idiot for taking that obviously sarcastic quote and disingenuously presented it as serious". Totally desperate move on your part in retaliation to me triggering you.

Pathetic.

It's not my fault your sarcasm (if it was sarcasm) didn't come through over written word on the internet ....in a conversation about rape.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I don't know the story.

But i will say you can rape someone who wanted to have sex with you, you can rape your wife or GF. Further that they stayed after doesn't prove you innocent.

Agreed.

Just as them saying it was not consensual does not mean that it was not or even was not initiated by them.

As i said its a fucked up he said she said. I don't think it is valid to pretend supposed victims or accused doesn't suffer from that nature.

Agreed

If however you can prove that the accusations were vexatious then yes you should charge people. But i think it should be a high bar of proof to do all reasonable to ensure you don't jail a rape victim simply because they couldn't afford the lawyers their rapist could.

Agreed.

Without a doubt or 'connected' and our increasingly 'surveilled' society is providing some defense for the accused is these scenarios where they otherwise would have had none and likely faced jail time on top of their reputational damage.

Our law is based on the precept that it is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to go to jail for a crime he did not commit.

this is the colloquialism that was oft repeated..

'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted'

it seems this precept is generally in place except for in this area where the law assumes a parental (paternal ironically) role over woman and feels the law needs to be skewed to ensure this is not the standard in these cases (as we see happening in Canada above).

 

[MikeMcMann]

I mean stories like the OP should give EVERYONE serious pause about skewing the laws or rulings in any way from the 'innocent until proven guilty' precept that has been foundational to our system of laws.

it certainly seems fair to say that many women can and do fabricate such things for various reasons.

Even if you give full benefit of the doubt, such as in the Ghomeshi case (cited up thread) and that the women recall it differently AFTER THE FACT and are not criminal conspirators, that should be terrifying to all. What was consensual and pursued by the lady prior to sex being engaged we can see may be re-remembered after the fact, when circumstances have changed and she realizes she is not going to get a relationship with the guy or maybe he's' a philander.

it is pretty clear that in the best case scenario here (assuming no purposeful lies) that HOW A WOMAN FEELS ABOUT A MAN AFTER SEX HAS OCCURED and she realizes she may not be getting the relationship with him she wants can completely change how she remembers the various consents within the sex act.

 

[HIMBOB]

Agreed.

Just as them saying it was not consensual does not mean that it was not or even was not initiated by them.


Agreed

Agreed.

Without a doubt or 'connected' and our increasingly 'surveilled' society is providing some defense for the accused is these scenarios where they otherwise would have had none and likely faced jail time on top of their reputational damage.

Our law is based on the precept that it is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to go to jail for a crime he did not commit.

this is the colloquialism that was oft repeated..

'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted'

it seems this precept is generally in place except for in this area where the law assumes a parental (paternal ironically) role over woman and feels the law needs to be skewed to ensure this is not the standard in these cases (as we see happening in Canada above).

A question if i may.

Do you feel that the difficulty in proving guilt in rape cases adds to the lasting stigma associated with rape accusations?

I do and as such feel gains made in one area would benefit the other.

I will say that I have actually devoted no small amount of thought to this issue and honesty i have fuck all answers or suggestions . Not even ideas that others shot down, they simply don't stand up long enough for me to say or type them.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You asked a dumb, loaded question. Don't pretend there was much thought behind it.

The thought would be in the discussion that you don't seem capable of, and what's dumb is lacking the acuity to explain your reasoning. So don't pretend the short-coming is on my end.

No big deal. Not everyone enjoys philosophical debate.

 

[MikeMcMann]

A question if i may.

Do you feel that the difficulty in proving guilt in rape cases adds to the lasting stigma associated with rape accusations?

Not exactly sure what you are asking as both sides suffer a stigma whether the case is proved or the person found innocent. It is a tough situation for sure.

I do and as such feel gains made in one area would benefit the other.

Not sure what you mean by "gains" to be honest.

I find the type of "gains" Canada is trying to get wrong.

I will say that I have actually devoted no small amount of thought to this issue and honesty i have fuck all answers or suggestions . Not even ideas that others shot down, they simply don't stand up long enough for me to say or type them.

Ya tough issue.

But what all should avoid doing is what Canada has done with its Victims Right bill mentioned upthread. Tucking in extra provisions based on the Rape Shield laws that a person past or future should not be used against them in a way that email, text or video evidence can now be barred as evidence in cases such as the 3 in this thread is horrendous. We get that we do not rapists to go unconvinced. We get that we do not women victims re-victimized by the system. But trying to block the woman's own actions that mean speak to consent because you have an agenda is just wrong any way you look at it.

And as stated in the video it should be "Accusers Bill of Rights" and not "Victims" as that presupposes guilt of the other party.

 

[HIMBOB]

Not exactly sure what you are asking as both sides suffer a stigma whether the case is proved or the person found innocent. It is a tough situation for sure.


Not sure what you mean by "gains" to be honest.

I find the type of "gains" Canada is trying to get wrong.



Ya tough issue.

But what all should avoid doing is what Canada has done with its Victims Right bill mentioned upthread. Tucking in extra provisions based on the Rape Shield laws that a person past or future should not be used against them in a way that email, text or video evidence can now be barred as evidence in cases such as the 3 in this thread is horrendous. We get that we do not rapists to go unconvinced. We get that we do not women victims re-victimized by the system. But trying to block the woman's own actions that mean speak to consent because you have an agenda is just wrong any way you look at it.

And as stated in the video it should be "Accusers Bill of Rights" and not "Victims" as that presupposes guilt of the other party.

Im asking if we could establish guilt better would it lessen the stigma that goes to the accused even after they have been tried and not convicted.

By Gains i mean ability to correctly assign guilt or innocence.


I can see both sides of my very limited understanding of those laws. As i mentioned earlier you can't prove consent at one point in time by actions at a previous point in time. If however video or electronic evidence is incongruous with one parties version of events that should be included. So it really comes down to what the evidence is being used to support or disprove.