Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: How society protects predators and silences women and girls

  1. Top | #21
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    14,873
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    30,559
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Floof View Post
    Brock Turner brutalized a human being and got off scot free.
    No, he didn't. He served several months in jail.

    But I guess lying for feminism is a-ok.

  2. Top | #22
    Intergalactic Villainess Angry Floof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sector 001
    Posts
    9,008
    Archived
    14,435
    Total Posts
    23,443
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Floof View Post
    Brock Turner brutalized a human being and got off scot free.
    No, he didn't. He served several months in jail.

    But I guess lying for feminism is a-ok.
    It's hardly a slap on the wrist for what he did. But I guess rape by an opportunist predator is a-ok with rape apologists.
    The Authoritarians

    GOP and Trump supporters will not be able to say they didn't know. Vote in numbers too big to manipulate.

  3. Top | #23
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,654
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    12,098
    Rep Power
    68
    As far as culture goes, I think a lot of it centres around basic authoritarianism and corruption, as well as the centuries old gender role stereotypes of male as strong aggressive stoic agent and female as weak vulnerable emotional non-agent.

    Those stereotypes lead to many forms of bias and discrimination against people of both of these genders. Deference to authority explains most of what's left.

  4. Top | #24
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    3,663
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Floof View Post
    Well, this sort of thing just doesn't happen here!
    Shane Piche admitted to raping a 14-year-old girl who rode the school bus he drove.
    Shane Piche had sex (apparently consensual) with a 14 year old girl. Because she was 14, it is considered rape and he plead guilty. All things considered, his sentence was within the guidelines. I can see why the headlines create outrage but once you dig a little deeper it's not what the headlines try to imply.

  5. Top | #25
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,041
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    No....There are no legal rights available to heterosexuals that are not also available to homosexuals. Australia is not homophobic just because there are individuals who are.
    So, again, it would at least appear that you are tying "culture" to "laws."

    So, to you, "culture" equates only to "existence of a law"?
    No. "Pride" month recently took place in Australia, where every corporation in Australia fell over themselves to proclaim gay pride.
    Ok, so now it's laws and "every corporation." How did you measure that, btw? Or is that also just your hyperbole/opinion?

    I'm trying to parse what you consider (or don't consider) to be evidence.

    A football star was recently excoriated by the public
    The entirety of Australia? Or are you also here speaking hyperbolically?

    and fired from his job because he posted some nonsense about homosexuals, atheists, idolaters, etc going to hell.

    None of these things would happen in a homophobic culture.
    Ok. So, to clarify, if there are no laws expressly forbidding something and every corporation supports it and "the public" all act as one monolithic force, then no one can argue that there is a culture of X.

    But, of course, you already conceded that "the publica" does NOT act as one monolithic force, so we can rule that out. And, of course, not every single corporation "fell over themselves to proclaim gay pride" (and even if they did it's reasonable to assume that was a business decision and not necessarily borne exclusively out of every member of the corporation being in lockstep in regard to their personal feelings), so that's out.

    Which puts us back to just laws on the books, but you've repeatedly stated "no" to that too.

    You may or may not be aware of a fast food chain called Chick-fil-A here in the states. The owners are famously Christian and at one point openly anti-gay marriage, which caused a tremendous backlash not from "every corporation" or "the entire American public all acting as one monolithic force" as is apparently the case with every social issue in Australia, but by a significant section of the US population.

    That was then met by a counter-movement of Christians and other like homophobes--also not "every" single person or corporation--coming out in support of Chick-fil-A. As that link above notes, they are right now in the middle of a law debate in Texas:

    The Texas state legislature recently passed what’s been dubbed the “Save Chick-fil-A” bill. The bill, introduced in response to the San Antonio City Council’s decision to remove a proposed Chick-fil-A location from its airport concession agreement, forbids government entities from taking “adverse actions” against businesses because of those businesses’ “religious beliefs and moral convictions, including beliefs and convictions regarding marriage.”

    The bill’s supporters say it’s a way of protecting businesses’ First Amendment rights — but opponents say it could give private businesses legal sanction for discriminating against LGBTQ customers or staff under the guise of free speech.
    So, does any of that pass your evidence test and how does that translate into what evidence you would need to accept that there is a rape culture? A state like Texas needs to pass some sort of law that would tend to favor rapists or something?

    I know, how about a Presidential candidate openly bragging about molesting women--along with 17 accusations--and yet still being voted in? Or a Supreme Court Justice nominee having had committed at least attempted rape and committing perjury about it (a would be Supreme Court Justice committing perjury), nevertheless given one of the most powerful positions in the world for life?

    Here's the breakdown in case you'd forgotten or just weren't paying attention to US news (which I don't blame you for):

    If you want to know why women don’t come forward with allegations of sexual assault, Thursday’s Senate hearings offered a clue.

    In the morning, an all-male panel of Republican senators hired an outside prosecutor to try to pick apart Christine Blasey Ford’s credibility live on national television. They refused to subpoena Mark Judge, the key witness, or launch the FBI investigation Ford asked for. And after hearing her testimony, and judging it credible, they simply ignored it.

    In the afternoon, those same senators feted Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the man Ford accused of attacking her. They cut off the prosecutor they hired in order to give speech after speech lamenting the way he and his family have suffered. They said they didn’t question that Ford’s assault was real, but perhaps her memory was flawed; whoever had assaulted her, could she really be trusted to say it was Kavanaugh?

    But Kavanaugh’s memory was beyond reproach. After calling in professional help to cross-examine Ford, they cut her off when she began to question Kavanaugh, and repeatedly apologized for troubling him and his family with all this mess.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, delivered an unforgettable performance. He was silent during Ford’s testimony, freely yielding his time to prosecutor Rachel Mitchell. During Kavanaugh’s testimony, however, Graham buoyed the witness and ripped into the Democrats. “This is hell,” he told Kavanaugh. The hearings were “the most unethical sham” he’d seen in his decades-long political career.
    ...
    According to Ford’s testimony, she had never told anyone of her sexual assault in detail. That changed in 2012, when she and her husband were redoing their home and she insisted on having a second front door — a second way out of the house. Her husband couldn’t understand; the request seemed ridiculous. Why does a house need two ways out?

    During a session with their couples therapist, Ford explained, it all spilled out. She had been assaulted as a teenager. She was pushed into a room and nearly raped. Her attacker, whom she recalled then and now as Kavanaugh, clapped his hand across her mouth when she screamed, pushing down so tightly she couldn’t breathe, so tightly she thought he might kill her by accident.
    ...
    That’s why she needed a second door in her house, she explained. Because in a moment of trauma, she had needed another way out, and 30 years later, there was still a part of her that couldn’t be comfortable, that couldn’t feel safe, without another way out. That’s why there’s a record from 2012, when her therapist wrote down what Ford said; when her husband first heard Kavanaugh’s name. That’s why her allegation was taken seriously.
    Note that part in particular. This was an allegation first revealed in 2012--long before anyone ever heard of Kavanaugh and long before Trump even announced he was running, let alone that he planned on nominated Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS--and it was made to her husband and their therapist no less, with a verifiable record in regard to the therapist's notes.

    The piece continues:

    If Ford did everything — and more — that could be asked of a witness, Kavanaugh did something near the opposite. He entered the hearing with his jaw set and his face flushed. His voice a near shout, he read a long, angry, unflinching, and notably Trumpish statement.

    “This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” he raged, “fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus.”

    Kavanaugh’s anger worked. Just as Ford fit society’s expectations for a victim, Kavanaugh looked like a man falsely accused: furious, fearful, tearing up when he mentioned his parents or his daughters. He laced into his tormentors, determined to clear his name. He gave no ground. He badgered and interrupted the Democrats questioning him.
    ...
    The day played out like a set piece. In the morning, Ford showed how high the bar was to even have a chance of being believed. Her story is specific, credible, serious. She’s told it to multiple people over the years. She tried to tell it to Congress before Kavanaugh was nominated. She places Kavanaugh in the town he lived, at the house of a person he knew, in a room with one of his best friends. She tried her best to be polite to the senators, to avoid offense, to show gratitude to the committee for listening to her. She took a polygraph, begged for an FBI investigation. She says she’s 100 percent sure it was Kavanaugh who attacked her.

    In the afternoon, Kavanaugh simply denied all charges. He denied ever being blackout drunk. He denied ever forgetting anything of importance. He denied the possibility he was wrong, that it might be useful for his alleged accomplice Mark Judge to testify or for the FBI to investigate. He said Ford’s memory had failed her but was incredulous at the idea that his recall could deliver a similar error.

    And he fought back. He slammed his accusers; he made clear his pain, his rage. If Ford was grateful for the opportunity to be heard, Kavanaugh was incredulous that she was being given that opportunity, that it was taking this long, that it could possibly take longer.

    Asked why the committee couldn’t take another week to investigate the claims more thoroughly, he shot back, “Every day has been a lifetime.” His suffering was immense, unfair, unforgivable. “I’m never going to get my reputation back,” he said. “My life is totally and permanently altered.”

    The suffering of his accusers, women who say they’ve been living with the trauma of what he did for decades? They were mistaken, and their claims could be, should be, for the good of the county had to be, dismissed. “This grotesque character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country,” he said.

    The feminist philosopher Kate Manne coined the term “himpathy” to describe the “tendency to dismiss the female perspective altogether, to empathize with the powerful man over his less powerful alleged female victim.” What Kavanaugh did today was activate the Republican Party’s powerful sense of himpathy: His suffering was the question, and Ford’s suffering, to say nothing of any further search for the truth, slipped soundlessly beneath the water.

    We ended the day in much the same place we started: his word against hers. But even as everyone agreed Ford’s word was credible, it didn’t matter. There was still Kavanaugh’s word. And it appeared, for Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, that that was enough. She was 100 percent sure and he was 100 percent sure, but it was his 100 percent sure that mattered.

    On this, Trump was right. What Kavanaugh had needed to do was go on the offensive. He needed to remind the all-male Republican panel that he was the victim here, that any of them could be victims, that moving his nomination forward would be a show of strength, a message sent to the Democrats and their allies, a statement that these tactics end here and they end now. This is how you fight #MeToo: by focusing on the pain it’s causing men, by centering their suffering.
    It concludes (emphasis mine):

    All of this was, perhaps, predictable. On Wednesday, a new NPR/Marist poll found that while large majorities of Democrats and independents believed Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination should be rejected if Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations are true, a majority of Republicans believed Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if Ford’s allegations are true. If Thursday’s hearing didn’t ultimately seem to be about the truth at all, well, perhaps that’s why: The truth was never really what Senate Republicans were after.
    I'm going to repeat that part about the poll. A majority of Republicans (voters, iow), believed "Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if Ford's allegations are true."

    Is that sufficient evidence for you to accept that there is a rape culture in America? When a majority of the voters of the ruling party believe that a Supreme Court Justice nominee should be placed into the Court even if the allegations of rape against him are true?

    Since it's a matter of opinion, I sure as shit consider that fact alone sufficient to establish a rape culture in America. Does that mean the totality of America or Americans condone rape? Of course not, but who declared that to be the bar?

    Oh, yes, right. You did, in effect. In your opinion.

  6. Top | #26
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    2,911
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    13,885
    Rep Power
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post

    So, again, it would at least appear that you are tying "culture" to "laws."
    Gospa moja. Laws reflect culture. Sometimes laws lag cultural mood (e.g. the political will to implement same sex marriage in Australia was actually behind the public sentiment to implement it), and sometimes laws "lead" a culture.

    But I can certainly tell you that a culture that has anti-gay laws is more homophobic than a culture that doesn't. The law reflects culture and also shapes culture.

    Ok, so now it's laws and "every corporation." How did you measure that, btw? Or is that also just your hyperbole/opinion?
    What is your problem? How would you like me to prove the absence of something, except by reference to every day experience?

    I'm trying to parse what you consider (or don't consider) to be evidence.
    The every day experience of me and my homosexual friends is evidence.

    The entirety of Australia? Or are you also here speaking hyperbolically?
    There were articles about it every day; the vast majority of them condemned him.

    He certainly wasn't excoriated by me, because a Christian telling me 'homosexuals go to hell' on their social media which i don't even follow is such trivial nonsense I can't believe people have any emotional response to it whatever.

    Ok. So, to clarify, if there are no laws expressly forbidding something and every corporation supports it and "the public" all act as one monolithic force, then no one can argue that there is a culture of X.
    No, it doesn't have to be monolithic.

    You may or may not be aware of a fast food chain called Chick-fil-A here in the states. The owners are famously Christian and at one point openly anti-gay marriage, which caused a tremendous backlash not from "every corporation" or "the entire American public all acting as one monolithic force" as is apparently the case with every social issue in Australia, but by a significant section of the US population.

    That was then met by a counter-movement of Christians and other like homophobes--also not "every" single person or corporation--coming out in support of Chick-fil-A. As that link above notes, they are right now in the middle of a law debate in Texas:

    The Texas state legislature recently passed what’s been dubbed the “Save Chick-fil-A” bill. The bill, introduced in response to the San Antonio City Council’s decision to remove a proposed Chick-fil-A location from its airport concession agreement, forbids government entities from taking “adverse actions” against businesses because of those businesses’ “religious beliefs and moral convictions, including beliefs and convictions regarding marriage.”

    The bill’s supporters say it’s a way of protecting businesses’ First Amendment rights — but opponents say it could give private businesses legal sanction for discriminating against LGBTQ customers or staff under the guise of free speech.
    I'm sorry, what? One mid-level fast food chain in America doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, and some baker somewhere doesn't bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, and that's enough evidence for you to label an entire culture homophobic?


    I'm going to repeat that part about the poll. A majority of Republicans (voters, iow), believed "Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if Ford's allegations are true."

    Is that sufficient evidence for you to accept that there is a rape culture in America?
    Of course it isn't. Are crimes never to be forgiven in America?

    When a majority of the voters of the ruling party believe that a Supreme Court Justice nominee should be placed into the Court even if the allegations of rape against him are true?
    It may surprise you that a majority of Republicans is not a majority of Americans, and that sometimes Democrats are the ruling party.

    Since it's a matter of opinion, I sure as shit consider that fact alone sufficient to establish a rape culture in America. Does that mean the totality of America or Americans condone rape? Of course not, but who declared that to be the bar?

    Oh, yes, right. You did, in effect. In your opinion.
    It seems no bar is low enough for you. Apparently the 'majority' of the ruling party determines what a culture is. But I'll bet you think Democrat voters are a rape culture too.

  7. Top | #27
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    7,876
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    11,531
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by TSwizzle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angry Floof View Post
    Well, this sort of thing just doesn't happen here!
    Shane Piche admitted to raping a 14-year-old girl who rode the school bus he drove.
    Shane Piche had sex (apparently consensual) with a 14 year old girl. Because she was 14, it is considered rape and he plead guilty. All things considered, his sentence was within the guidelines. I can see why the headlines create outrage but once you dig a little deeper it's not what the headlines try to imply.
    1. At age 14, she was unable to give consent so no, it wasn’t consensual
    And
    2. He got her drunk so she wasn’t able to give consent so it wasn’t consensual.

    To recap: a 26 year old adult with authority over her convinced a 14 year old to go to his home where he got her drunk and raped her.

  8. Top | #28
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    23,861
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    120,613
    Rep Power
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    I'm going to repeat that part about the poll. A majority of Republicans (voters, iow), believed "Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if Ford's allegations are true."

    Is that sufficient evidence for you to accept that there is a rape culture in America? When a majority of the voters of the ruling party believe that a Supreme Court Justice nominee should be placed into the Court even if the allegations of rape against him are true?

    Since it's a matter of opinion, I sure as shit consider that fact alone sufficient to establish a rape culture in America. Does that mean the totality of America or Americans condone rape? Of course not, but who declared that to be the bar?

    Oh, yes, right. You did, in effect. In your opinion.
    I don't think this is a matter of rape culture, but rather a matter of thinking appointing a very conservative justice was more important than what he did as a teenager.

  9. Top | #29
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    7,876
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    11,531
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    I'm going to repeat that part about the poll. A majority of Republicans (voters, iow), believed "Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if Ford's allegations are true."

    Is that sufficient evidence for you to accept that there is a rape culture in America? When a majority of the voters of the ruling party believe that a Supreme Court Justice nominee should be placed into the Court even if the allegations of rape against him are true?

    Since it's a matter of opinion, I sure as shit consider that fact alone sufficient to establish a rape culture in America. Does that mean the totality of America or Americans condone rape? Of course not, but who declared that to be the bar?

    Oh, yes, right. You did, in effect. In your opinion.
    I don't think this is a matter of rape culture, but rather a matter of thinking appointing a very conservative justice was more important than what he did as a teenager.
    Loren, a part of what makes some place as having a ‘rape culture’ is just that: deciding that getting/keeping in power someone who advances or supports your world view is more important than whether or not that person is a rapist.

  10. Top | #30
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,041
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koy
    When a majority of the voters of the ruling party believe that a Supreme Court Justice nominee should be placed into the Court even if the allegations of rape against him are true?
    It may surprise you that a majority of Republicans is not a majority of Americans, and that sometimes Democrats are the ruling party.
    It shouldn't surprise you, but your evident position that a "culture" can only be commensurate to some sort of officially stated/officially codified majority opinion is pure sophistry. It's like saying there is no culture of racism in America because there are no longer laws protecting slavery, the civil rights bill passed and 51% of Americans no longer use the word "nigger."

    But the point was, of course, that you clearly have no standard of evidence, other than this unjustifiable opinion that a culture in the context of a social issue like racism (or homophobia or any other such issues) can only be formed by the majority opinion of all of the citizens of a country as a whole, i.e., as a monolithic entity.

    As (apparently) a gay man in Australia, are you saying that there are not sections of the country--some towns or provinces or whatever the fuck Australia has--where there isn't a noticeable anti-gay culture among the locals, such that you would generally tend not to go on vacation there or the like? Because I can tell you without hesitation there are entire States in America--entire swaths of States--where blacks and gays and women and basically anyone not lillywhite and male are going to feel a noticeable anti-whatever-isn't-lillywhitemale in spite of the laws and the progress made and the fact that one of the greatest Presidents we've ever had was black, etc., etc., etc.

    Is it coming from the majority of Americans as a monolithic whole? Obviously not. Does every State/locality in America contain the majority of Americans as a monolithic whole? Obviously not. Is it possible for a minority to rule and--in spite of the laws of the land and the majority of the opinions of Americans as a whole--nevertheless maintain and inflict a suppressive culture against other minority groups within that majority? Are there any five year old children that you know so you can ask them these obvious questions so the rest of us don't have to waste our time getting you up to speed?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •