Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Believe women

#11
confused2 Offline
Stryder Wrote:Women were creeped out by Kavanaugh.
Clearly not all:-
https://eu.scsun-news.com/story/news/pol...563416002/

Stryder Wrote:In most real world cases [of rapists], it's never one victim or one instance...
We don't know how many women report being raped. If one woman reports a rape it's a complicated case (#notreallybelievingwomen) - if several women report being raped by the same man (#numbersarestartingtomountupnotsurewecanignorethis) then it's a much simpler case (of maybe 70 unreported rapes) so it's a numbers game both for the rapist and the victims. Any victim can (at best) hope for a Pyrrhic victory, whether reported or unreported there is fear, the rapist will be free either now or later and the fear will never go away.

Syne Wrote:If so, then it's just a false rallying cry against a complete straw man.
Does "everyone listen to women"?

UK locally (very local - I knew the stalker):-

"About 125 reports of stalking were logged by Devon and Cornwall Police over the course of five years before the attempted murder last October, in which Ms Pearson was stabbed eight times near St Bartholomew's Cemetery in Exeter."
From:-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-29020000
Reply
#12
Syne Offline
(Oct 8, 2018 11:45 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I think it means that people feel that the high focus on false reports may give us the false impression that they’re more common than they actually are. There should be a stiffer penalty for filing a false report but I don’t know how we could handle them without making it even more difficult for genuine victims to come forward. I do think there’s a huge problem with this strong presumption of guilt, though. I realize that everyone responds to traumatic events in their own way but this whole PTSD thing is overused and out of control. I think it was Dawkins, who made the claim that some incidences are worse than others. I tend to agree with that.

While the stat, of only 2-10% of rapes/sexual assaults charged are proven false, is true, that sample is only of accusations deemed credible enough to be prosecuted, e.g. "charged". Only about 20% of reported cases lead to charges, whether due to lying or lack of corroborating evidence, like a timely rape kit. We don't know the percentage of why such cases aren't prosecuted.

I agree, a crime report, proven to be false, should incur the same punishment as the crime reported. True victims have no reason to fear proof that they've lied, because there would be none. So this would likely deter liars.

One of the problems seems to be that actual victims want to exercise their own trauma by proxy of any publicized accusations.

(Oct 8, 2018 03:34 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: OK, is the thread is a spinoff from the Kavanaugh interrogation/inquiry or whatever it's called? I don't keep up with politics much, especially USA version. So believe the women means we take the alleged female victim's words as gospel during a rape/sexual misconduct inquiry, is that it? Not being facetious, I honestly don't know what the thread subject is about. However if Syne wants to call it a false rallying cry while SS compares it to false reports then I'm OK with both. Fortunately I've never been accused, falsely or otherwise of anything unlawful so I can only imagine how it would affect someone mentally or why people would deliberately falsely accuse but i'm not naive enough to think it never happens. Sounds a bit like Mein Kampf. 

Kavanaugh is the latest example, but it seems to be a prevalent argument against the presumption of innocence in any publicized accusations. As if those who believe in due process of law somehow don't care about actual victims...which we can only find out that they are through the legal process.

(Oct 8, 2018 04:22 PM)Yazata Wrote:
(Oct 8, 2018 02:31 AM)Syne Wrote: What does "believe women" mean?

In the current political climate, it means this: Whenever a woman makes a claim of some kind of sexual impropriety against a man (ranging from rape to "sexual harassment"), and if there is isn't any corroborating evidence and it's just 'he said/she said', one must always take the woman's side and believe her account.
That generally seems to be the meaning from those who argue it.
Quote:
Quote:What does it mean to you?

It's crying victim in hopes of exerting power. That combination is like catnip to the female psychology.
I would agree, much to the detriment of actual victims.
Quote:
Quote:Is there any definitive source that defines it?

I expect that many feminist tracts talk about it, though not quite in the same terms that I've framed it. You are unlikely to find much reference to it in mainstream ethical theory outside feminist writings.
Yeah, mostly a facetious question.
Reply
#13
Leigha Offline
I think it's crucial to only make presumptions or determinations of allegations of misconduct based on facts. it is insulting to me as a woman, that simply because of my gender, I can accuse any man of misconduct and I will be believed. He will have his life ruined, without due process of law. That doesn't empower me as a woman, it implies that I need to be coddled, instead of treated equal. Being treated equal means that a man's word isn't better than my word because of his gender, nor is mine better than his, simply because of my gender. Facts should always matter most, and a fair and equitable investigation. What would matter more to me, is that my word is looked into, taken seriously, and an investigation begins. I don't agree with men losing their jobs and being ostracized based on mere allegations that have not been investigated for merit.

Now with the Dr Ford vs Kavanaugh situation, I did believe her story, and didn't believe his testimony. I think he came across sketchy, and he couldn't answer straight forward questions. I don't think that the FBI conducted a proper investigation. ''Believe women'' to me, means that women should be heard, and our testimonies not swept away simply because men in power have the mindset of ''boys will be boys.''

I tend to view every case on an individual basis, and every person deserves to be heard, even the accused. He was heard, and i'm surprised he got confirmed. I thought he came across less credible than she did. If we are basing things strictly on the court of public opinion, then, he lost. I still consider what she did to be very courageous, and may she be seen as paving the way for more women to do the same.
Reply
#14
Syne Offline
(Oct 28, 2018 10:09 PM)Leigha Wrote: That doesn't empower me as a woman, it implies that I need to be coddled, instead of treated equal.
Exactly.
Quote:Now with the Dr Ford vs Kavanaugh situation, I did believe her story, and didn't believe his testimony. I think he came across sketchy, and he couldn't answer straight forward questions. I don't think that the FBI conducted a proper investigation. ''Believe women'' to me, means that women should be heard, and our testimonies not swept away simply because men in power have the mindset of ''boys will be boys.''

I tend to view every case on an individual basis, and every person deserves to be heard, even the accused. He was heard, and i'm surprised he got confirmed. I thought he came across less credible than she did. If we are basing things strictly on the court of public opinion, then, he lost. I still consider what she did to be very courageous, and may she be seen as paving the way for more women to do the same.

So you found her more credible despite every witness she named, including her own female friend at the time, denying it ever happened, those who claimed to hear about it at the time recanted, and she wouldn't turn over ANY of the evidence she claimed supported her story (even though she had already shared it with news outlets)? Or did you simply find her more credible because you're a woman and felt more affinity for her portrayal of a victim than a man's righteous indignation?

If women judge situations on the basis of emotion instead of evidence they're still signalling they need to be coddled. If they won't accept what the evidence clearly says, they're obviously not empowered enough to overcome the exact same impetus for character assassination.


And as any lawyers worth his salt would advise, some questions have no good answer. For instance, being asked if he wanted Judge to testify. If he had just said no, they would have assumed he had something to hide. And if he had said yes, they would have had yet another reason to delay his confirmation. He was damned either way...like being asked if you "still beat your wife".
Reply
#15
Secular Sanity Offline
Well, you know what the problem is, don’t you? Lots of women have experienced similar situations. Whether it’s true or not, that in and of itself makes her story more believable.

 Welcome back, Leigha!
Reply
#16
Syne Offline
(Oct 29, 2018 01:15 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Well, you know what the problem is, don’t you? Lots of women have experienced similar situations. Whether it’s true or not, that in and of itself makes her story more believable.

Any rational adult knows that someone doing something to you has nothing to do with someone else doing something to another. But making decisions, even ones that condemn others, based solely on emotion is a woman's forte. Emotion clouds, to the exclusion of actual reasoning.
Reply
#17
Secular Sanity Offline
(Oct 29, 2018 01:38 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Oct 29, 2018 01:15 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Well, you know what the problem is, don’t you? Lots of women have experienced similar situations. Whether it’s true or not, that in and of itself makes her story more believable.

Any rational adult knows that someone doing something to you has nothing to do with someone else doing something to another. But making decisions, even ones that condemn others, based solely on emotion is a woman's forte. Emotion clouds, to the exclusion of actual reasoning.

It is what it is. It's very common. It stats, not emotions.
Reply
#18
Syne Offline
(Oct 29, 2018 01:46 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Oct 29, 2018 01:38 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Oct 29, 2018 01:15 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Well, you know what the problem is, don’t you? Lots of women have experienced similar situations. Whether it’s true or not, that in and of itself makes her story more believable.

Any rational adult knows that someone doing something to you has nothing to do with someone else doing something to another. But making decisions, even ones that condemn others, based solely on emotion is a woman's forte. Emotion clouds, to the exclusion of actual reasoning.

It is what it is. It's very common. It stats, not emotions.

So...1.8 per 1,000 (BJS 2016) is common enough that any given guy being accused must be guilty, regardless of lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary? O_o
That's an emotional overestimation of danger...like you being paranoid and "sizing every man up for danger". Rolleyes
Reply
#19
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:So...1.8 per 1,000 (BJS 2016) is common enough that any given guy being accused must be guilty, regardless of lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary? O_o
That's an emotional overestimation of danger...like you being paranoid and "sizing every man up for danger".  Rolleyes

"One in five women and one in 71 men will be raped at some point in their lives.

In the U.S., one in three women and one in six men experienced some form of contact sexual violence in their lifetime."

https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics
Reply
#20
Leigha Offline
(Oct 29, 2018 12:07 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Oct 28, 2018 10:09 PM)Leigha Wrote: That doesn't empower me as a woman, it implies that I need to be coddled, instead of treated equal.
Exactly.
Quote:Now with the Dr Ford vs Kavanaugh situation, I did believe her story, and didn't believe his testimony. I think he came across sketchy, and he couldn't answer straight forward questions. I don't think that the FBI conducted a proper investigation. ''Believe women'' to me, means that women should be heard, and our testimonies not swept away simply because men in power have the mindset of ''boys will be boys.''

I tend to view every case on an individual basis, and every person deserves to be heard, even the accused. He was heard, and i'm surprised he got confirmed. I thought he came across less credible than she did. If we are basing things strictly on the court of public opinion, then, he lost. I still consider what she did to be very courageous, and may she be seen as paving the way for more women to do the same.

So you found her more credible despite every witness she named, including her own female friend at the time, denying it ever happened, those who claimed to hear about it at the time recanted, and she wouldn't turn over ANY of the evidence she claimed supported her story (even though she had already shared it with news outlets)? Or did you simply find her more credible because you're a woman and felt more affinity for her portrayal of a victim than a man's righteous indignation?

If women judge situations on the basis of emotion instead of evidence they're still signalling they need to be coddled. If they won't accept what the evidence clearly says, they're obviously not empowered enough to overcome the exact same impetus for character assassination.


And as any lawyers worth his salt would advise, some questions have no good answer. For instance, being asked if he wanted Judge to testify. If he had just said no, they would have assumed he had something to hide. And if he had said yes, they would have had yet another reason to delay his confirmation. He was damned either way...like being asked if you "still beat your wife".

From what I recall, I'm not sure the ''friends'' and ''witnesses'' denied it happening, with absolution. They simply couldn't recall the party at all. Kind of like how Kavanaugh couldn't recall staggering, and blacking out, but clearly some of his classmates did, back in college. Not recalling something, isn't the same thing as denying it. I don't know for sure, but Dr Ford seemed credible to me. I don't understand why the FBI didn't interview her, or Kavanaugh, and others...or take longer. It seemed like it was being steered to bring people to conclusions, even if they weren't quite ready to make them.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)