babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Part 2: Duke University Rape Update

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Part 2: Duke University Rape Update
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 29 June 2006 05:10 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I want to thank Michelle for her final post in the thread I started here

And I hoped to continue the discussion in a more feminist way, if possible.

For me, the offering of so much money speaks to the truth of what happened to this woman, as well as the kind of dough these people have at their disposal. If she were to quietly go away they can continue their racist sexist mythology about who they are. (I'm thinking the expression "boys will be boys" was invented for just this kinda thing) These young men are going to be part of the elite ruling class anyways, it's not like a guilty charge (on the small chance that it comes to that) would ruin their lives.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 29 June 2006 05:21 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Prosecutor Nifong seems to be a big moving force in this whole scandal. I wonder what his true motivations are?

The paranoid part of my mind thinks he is trying to send some kind of coded message to his voters.


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 04 July 2006 03:38 PM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wikipedia entry on the case (worth reading)
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 04 July 2006 06:40 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
If she were to quietly go away they can continue their racist sexist mythology about who they are.

This is a perceptive statement, bcg. Much of what has bothered me about this case is the perpetuation of certain mythologies. We have few facts, and so we must fill in the knowledge gaps with what we guess and infer. In doing so we have collectively jumped to old familiar stories such as:

She is falsely accusing the men for personal profit.

She is mentally unbalanced and the men are not to blame for what happened, whatever it was.

She consented and then regretted, and now is lying by crying rape.

These are some of the narratives I've been hearing from colleagues and friends, and which I saw echoed here in another thread...

Perhaps we don't have solid evidence that she was raped. But neither do we have solid evidence that she lied, that she's unbalanced, or that she's changed her story. In the absence of facts we generally turn to the version of the story that makes us most comfortable -- that meshes with our worldview, that seems most likely to us to have happened. It disturbs me that stories which exculpate the men and attribute negative characteristics to the woman are the stories in circulation.

Regardless of the factual circumstances of this case, our quickness to indict the accuser speaks volumes about our collective views on race and gender. Our mytholgy is at work as we try to explain this incident, and that mythology is disturbing to me.


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 05 July 2006 03:34 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by v michel:
. . . Regardless of the factual circumstances of this case, our quickness to indict the accuser speaks volumes about our collective views on race and gender. . . .

"our collective views"

I don't follow. Are you saying that you, personally, were also quick to indict the accuser? Or did you mean to say "other people's collective views," but not yours personally? Or is every person imputed with these "collective views" even if the person disagrees with them?

The woman who was with her called her story a "crock." How can we believe the woman in this case when one of the women says that the other woman's story is a "crock?"

I do agree with you that this story is a good mythbuster. When the myths are fully busted, I predict stories like this will go out of vogue.


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 July 2006 03:42 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the problem is that there is a very real need to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that an accused rapist has actually committed the crime. It looks like there might be some reasonable doubt here, despite the fact that it's a bunch of spoiled rich brats who stand accused. The problem is that, when trying to establish reasonable doubt (which is every accused person's absolute right), the accusations are going to come under strong scrutiny, and that's what people consider putting the accuser on trial.

Unfortunately, I think that's the way it has to be, and I don't see any way around that. I don't think people (on babble at least) are "indicting the accuser". If assuming an accused person's innocence until their guilt is proved (and exploring any reasonable doubt there might be) is "indicting the accuser", then that pretty much undermines the whole idea of innocent until proven guilty. I don't think that rape cases should be an exception to the rule that the onus is on the accuser to prove the guilt of the perpetrators.

I realize this means a lot of rape cases can't be successfully prosecuted. I have no idea what to do about that. But I don't believe that exempting accusations from extremely strong scrutiny is the answer.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 05 July 2006 04:04 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If I am listening correctly, Michelle, you are saying that somebody interested in the truth should patiently listen to all the evidence and then decide if it is possible to tell who is telling the truth and, if so, then decide who to believe (if anyone). If that is what you are saying, it sounds good to me. If I have misinterpreted, let me know if you have a chance.

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE RICH BRATS

Whether the lax kids are spoiled rich kids or not, it is primarily their coach who has suffered reputational damage here according to the wikipedia entry. I don't assume that he is spoiled or rich, but I guess he could be.

I found it disturbing that they made one of the accused's private emails public. No matter how vile what one says in private may be (and the email here was pretty vile), it is not the police or prosecutor's business to be unilaterally outing on that. Even Canada's liberal hate speech laws exempt private conversations from their reach. First they came for the rich brats, etc, etc.


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sean Tisdall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3465

posted 05 July 2006 05:23 AM      Profile for Sean Tisdall   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I think the problem is that there is a very real need to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that an accused rapist has actually committed the crime. It looks like there might be some reasonable doubt here, despite the fact that it's a bunch of spoiled rich brats who stand accused. The problem is that, when trying to establish reasonable doubt (which is every accused person's absolute right), the accusations are going to come under strong scrutiny, and that's what people consider putting the accuser on trial.

Unfortunately, I think that's the way it has to be, and I don't see any way around that. I don't think people (on babble at least) are "indicting the accuser". If assuming an accused person's innocence until their guilt is proved (and exploring any reasonable doubt there might be) is "indicting the accuser", then that pretty much undermines the whole idea of innocent until proven guilty. I don't think that rape cases should be an exception to the rule that the onus is on the accuser to prove the guilt of the perpetrators.

I realize this means a lot of rape cases can't be successfully prosecuted. I have no idea what to do about that. But I don't believe that exempting accusations from extremely strong scrutiny is the answer.[/qb]


Well said. I've heard it stated that the overriding goal of the justice system should be to first acquitt the innocent. And that seems like a good point to start from. Victims rights must not come at the expense of the rights of the accused, no matter the seriousness of the crime with which they are accused.

quote:
If she were to quietly go away they can continue their racist sexist mythology about who they are.

Speaking of jumping to collective mythology and stereotype...

[ 05 July 2006: Message edited by: Sean Tisdall ]


From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Dimension XY | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 July 2006 06:13 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think there's any reason to jump on that remark, Sean. I think it's pretty standard that rich white frat boys are generally living in an environment of extreme privilege, and that many of them construct a world view based on that, and that a boys-will-be-boys attitude is still quite common in that environment.

This is the feminism forum (where, as a man, you're a guest, remember?) and this thread is about a rape case. Please don't derail it with petty little quarrels with feminists who name the kind of privilege that comes with being rich, white, and male at an exclusive university.

[ 05 July 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sean Tisdall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3465

posted 05 July 2006 08:11 AM      Profile for Sean Tisdall   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm sorry Michelle, I was speaking from the same perspective that Agnes Macphail did, one questioning gender essentialism, an inherently limiting, zero sum dialectic, which only serves to ensure that men and women and the people who don't comfortably fit on that binary, will not be treated as equals. I have never considered it an anti-feminist act to state in the words of Agnes Macphail:

"What do women want? I think that women just want to be individuals, as men are individuals, no more and no less"

To do otherwise, to speak in gender essentialist terms, I believe creates conflict and irreconcilable dualism, where we should seek equality. I don't like being accused of being opposed to feminism, because I oppose gender essentialism and mysandry. These rich kids at duke could well be respectful individuals. We don't know, and to respond that they're a bunch of racist sexist arseholes is beyond the pale when it comes to stereotyping. We only hear an accusation, which you noted is not sufficient as proof. And I too should like to hear the facts of the case heard and ruled upon before making what could well be a perfectly accurate condemnation.


From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Dimension XY | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 July 2006 09:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Listen, you don't get it. You don't get to come in here and lecture feminists on what their outlook should be on race and class and gender privilege. You don't get to do it even if you can quote some racist and classist first-wave feminist from three quarters of a century ago and assume that that's the last word on feminism and that all feminists should conform to that particular feminist's point of view because you do.

A lot of feminist theory has happened since Agnes MacPhail. A lot of feminists on babble just might like to talk about race and class privilege, and not everyone subscribes to the rugged individual ideal.

As a man, you are a guest in this forum. Act like one, and quit lecturing feminists on how they should speak and think.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 05 July 2006 10:07 AM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I found it disturbing that they made one of the accused's private emails public.

E-mails are not private.

From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 05 July 2006 10:52 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Private emails are private.

Down in North Carolina emails are private within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Speaking as a US lawyer, I would guess that there is a decent chance that the accused will sue based on the disclosure of that email unless he consented somehow.

Up here in Canada private emails are private too. There is a law known as PIPEDA that specifies the conditions under which this private information can be accessed by the public and by law enforcement authorities. You might remember that in 2004 a Canadian Federal Court used this law to prevent a record industry organization from accessing isp company records in order to find copyright infringers.

The privacy in private emails may not be absolute, but it was apparently flagrantly violated when the police made the accused's private email public in the Duke Rape Case.

Imagine if the police had accessed the accuser's emails instead and broadcast those. Think about that for a bit and you will probably begin to see why it is important for individuals to have zones of privacy, where there are adverse consequences for the violators.

btw, I am not saying that the police were wrong to seize the accused's private emails, as they apparently got a legitimate warrant for that purpose. I am also not saying that the private evidence can't be used in a criminal proceeding. What I am saying is that the police/prosecutors should not be broadcasting these private things outside of the court.

Anyway, dudeski has at least a year to bring his claim, and, lucky for him, he probably has the money to bring it if he wants. I could easily imagine the police using this kind of tactic on someone who wasn't quite as white or wealthy and that is the cause for my concern.


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 05 July 2006 11:03 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Farces, I know I'm being a noob asking this, but since the contents of the e-mail were evidence in an information for an arrest warrant (a public document) (and I think the document I saw was an information), and was accessed pursuant to a search warrant (IIRC), wouldn't that preclude the civil trial? Unless the original search warrant was somehow improper, but even then... Am I missing some nuance of USian (or even Canadian ) law here?

(brain whirring, creaking ... abuse of process? .. everything seems like a longshot)

[ 06 July 2006: Message edited by: RP. ]


From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 05 July 2006 12:02 PM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know the full details under US or Canadian law, but generally speaking, courts have ways to keep private evidence private.

For example, in my line of work I deal with trade secrets litigation sometimes. Of course, if a trade secret was stolen, then you still want to keep that secret as much as possible, even while bringing the trade secret violator to justice. Accordingly, judges are good in those cases about allowing pleadings to be placed under seal and evidence to be viewed in private by a limited number of people.

In the US, all the evidence presented in a grand jury proceeding in order to get a serious criminal indictment is treated as secret, even the things that are otherwise public info.

In the Duke rape case, even if it were to go to trial, I have serious doubts that the email would make it in as its prejudicial value arguably outweighs its probativeness (assuming NC has something like FRE 403). In other words, the judge can view the private emails in private and if she excludes them then the privacy issue goes away.

In the Duke rape case itself, it is not clear that the indictment or any part of the investigation hinged on the private email, which, while highly inflammatory doesn't seem really pertinent to the rape allegations, such as they are.

In a case where the email was more relevant (eg, confession of a rape), there are still ways to deal with it so that it is not in wide public circulation before the trial, thereby prejudicing potential jurors. It is probably not an issue here because the Duke Rape case has unravelled to the point that there probably isn't going to be a trial. Still, I would hate to see this become standard operating procedure for the police just because the victim in this "initial impression" case happened to be rich, white, snotty and racist (or so I am led to believe). Although the police acted solidly profeminist in the Duke rape case, their motives are not always so pure or liberal.

ON EDIT:

My axe to grind here is that I would hate to see companies lose their trade secret because the team members working on a secret technology used email to communicate. Similarly, I would hate to see my lawyer communications lose any confidential status they may have just because I use email. I would hope that feminism does not blind us to this kind of potential collateral damage in areas of human endeavor where gender is not so much an issue.

[ 05 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 05 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 05 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Patrick Jerry
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11780

posted 05 July 2006 11:36 PM      Profile for Patrick Jerry        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I don't think there's any reason to jump on that remark, Sean. I think it's pretty standard that rich white frat boys are generally living in an environment of extreme privilege,...

In my experience rich people, male or female, white or non-white, are living in an environment of privilege.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 06 July 2006 10:42 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
patrick jerry---rich=power in most global societies,true
but rich women are still vulnerable to spousal abuse, assault by male strangers,objectivication in marketing, etc just because they are female.

wealth can help insulate a woman from some conditions of gender discrimination but not all of it.
wealthy, white males are still at the top of the heap.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 06 July 2006 04:43 PM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Private emails are private.
I was talking literally rather than legally. Surely everybody, including pointy-headed college boys, knows by now that e-mails have the potential to be disseminated everywhere.

From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 July 2006 04:59 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Jerry:
In my experience rich people, male or female, white or non-white, are living in an environment of privilege.

Yes they are. In this case we're talking not only about class and race privilege, but gender privilege. Which is, you know, what the feminism forum is here for.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 09 July 2006 04:44 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Jerry:
In my experience rich people, male or female, white or non-white, are living in an environment of privilege.

In my experience, you're Budd Campbell and you're outta here.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 17 July 2006 05:06 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just received this in my inbox, a statement from
UBUNTU, a Women of Color and Survivor-led community coalition in Durham, NC. Please forward and post.

quote:

Not Even a Little Funny

A priest, a rabbi, and a nun walk into a bar. They sit down and the bartender tells them that the best joke gets a beer on the house.

The nun looks up, excited, and says, “Your mother is so old, her social security number is 1.”

The rabbi follows, “What do you call a fish with no eyes?” The others look around with anxious smiles on their faces, “A fsh.”

The priest blurts out, “I’ve got one that’s going to slay you. Tonight I’m having some women come to my room to dance and strip for me. I’m planning to kill them, mutilate their bodies, and be sexually satisfied by the whole thing.”

The nun gets her pint.

The priest’s joke, of course, doesn’t work; specifically because it’s not a joke, it’s a threat. And it would be read as even more of a threat if the priest had just come from a retreat where some members of the priest’s, shall we say, lacrosse team, had hurled racist epithets at a pair of women they paid to dance for them and brutally sexually assaulted one of them. In fact, if this was the case, no one in the bar would read the statement as a joke, but an unambiguous assertion of power. Seemingly, there isn’t a setting in the world, whether a barroom, a party, a street corner, a classroom, or a church, where this kind of statement could be understood as appropriate. It does nothing but dehumanize women and sex workers, encouraging violence.

Any bartender with integrity would kick the dude out and ask him to never come back. This type of inhumanity would not be tolerated for several reasons, and the bartender would realize that roughly half of the bar’s most loyal customers were women who could not feel safe in the continued presence of this individual.

It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to get that this would be the only right thing to do.

Apparently, however, having a Ph.D. might make this situation less clear.

In the last week, it has become public knowledge that Duke University, which apparently has neither integrity nor concern for the safety of its students, has readmitted Duke lacrosse player Ryan McFadyen to its “hallowed” halls without sanction. McFadyen, for those who don’t know, wrote an email less than an hour after leaving the now infamous March 13th Duke lacrosse party where he explicitly described plans to kill and mutilate “strippers” for his sexual satisfaction.

For this act, Duke sent him home at the end of the spring semester. In readmitting him, they have stated that he had been asked to leave campus as an act of “protection” against violence or harassment that he might face. No mandatory counseling, no public apology, no punishment, and he will play on the reinstated lacrosse team. Duke officials also stated that the sending of this email, while “given the context of the time” was inappropriate, was not, in fact, disorderly conduct. But here’s the kicker: the administration has affirmed McFadyen’s explanation of the email as a joke made in reference to a scene in a popular movie

A joke?

This raises some important questions. Who has the power to decide whether or not an unrestrained threat is explained away as a “joke”? On whose behalf do we allow such explanations? What would make a threat be so bad that someone in power might take it seriously?

Let’s keep it real: any culture with the ironic gall to call giving something and then taking it back “Indian giving,” not “white man giving,” has a pretty staggering inability to correctly name a phenomenon. A “white lie” is one that isn’t so bad, though we’ve seen the results (cough, weapons of mass destruction) of white men’s lies. So we shouldn’t be surprised that such a blatant threat can be renamed a “joke” as the ruling class welcomes one of its prodigal sons back into the fold.

This, in America, is the ultimate mulligan, a “do-over.” “Wait, wait, you must have misunderstood what I meant.” “You musn’t have gotten the context of my statement.” “Aren’t you are being a little sensitive?” “I mean, I have several Black friends.” “I treat all my employees fairly.” “Our school is very diverse.”

We spend our time focusing on the intent of one white man’s words or deeds, and not the terrorism that they represent for many, many women and sex workers. We talk about the lacrosse players and their ilk as “good guys” gone astray, not about women of color on Duke’s campus and in Durham who have felt accused, exploited, criminalized, and victimized as a result of this action. All of our energy is spent on folks terrorizing others, not those being terrorized.

This is not okay. As the folks with the power to define what is “real”, what is funny, what is terrorism, and who does and does not have the right to safety, wealthy white men wield tremendous power. This power means that Ryan McFadyen can be removed from school for his safety, like the lacrosse team being spirited off campus as this story broke, while women of color on campus faced regular harassment. This power means that the hurt, terror, and fear that his words and presence provoke in women on Duke’s campus does not matter.

Further, Duke students who perceive that they are under “attack” for making “jokes,” having reckless parties, and generally acting like they are the only people on the planet, get affirmed by this decision. Make a heinous threat; someone will re-name it a “joke” and take care of you. Here, “freedom of speech” means the freedom to terrorize, to sow fear. Meanwhile, women will see McFadyen on campus and have terrors of him mutilating them for sexual gratification, no one in power concerned for their safety. But hey, it was “just a joke.”

Ryan McFadyen should be held accountable. He should not get the privilege of representing Duke in the public. He should undergo counseling and face University sanctions. He should publicly apologize and seek to repair the damage he has done and the terror he has inspired. Anything less is an attack on students, faculty, staff, and community members who have ever participated in sex work, or are women of color, white women, identify as LGBQ or transgender, or believe that Duke University is a place that values safety and integrity.

Duke had a chance this time. The fact that it blew it just isn’t very funny.

UBUNTU is a Women of Color and Survivor led coalition in Durham, NC, committed to justice, supporting survivors of sexual assault, and transforming our communities until the day that sexual assault no longer occurs. Those who wish to read the text of McFadyen’s email can at The smoking gun


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 18 July 2006 07:17 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*bump*
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 18 July 2006 07:30 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1. as the facts are emerging on this case, it is beginning to look pretty clear that there was no sexual assault.

2. The private email in this case was not a threat. It was a private conversation, and in a private conversation, you can say what you want as long as you are not engaging in a conspiracy to commit some crime other than having the conversation itself. The student's email should not have been leaked. I hope he is compensated for this invasion of privacy. A phoney-baloney rape claim is no excuse for the police to disclose a suspect's private conversations to the world. That is not an appropriate role for the police.


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 18 July 2006 09:24 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just trying to bring the thread back to the relevant topic....

quote:

We spend our time focusing on the intent of one white man’s words or deeds, and not the terrorism that they represent for many, many women and sex workers. We talk about the lacrosse players and their ilk as “good guys” gone astray, not about women of color on Duke’s campus and in Durham who have felt accused, exploited, criminalized, and victimized as a result of this action. All of our energy is spent on folks terrorizing others, not those being terrorized.

This is not okay. As the folks with the power to define what is “real”, what is funny, what is terrorism, and who does and does not have the right to safety, wealthy white men wield tremendous power. This power means that Ryan McFadyen can be removed from school for his safety, like the lacrosse team being spirited off campus as this story broke, while women of color on campus faced regular harassment. This power means that the hurt, terror, and fear that his words and presence provoke in women on Duke’s campus does not matter.



From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 18 July 2006 10:00 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I remember a scene in the movie twelve angry men where one of the characters, in anger, says "I'm gonna kill you." The character who received the 'threat' looked at the person in smug condescension, because he had just provne that verbal threats are not necessarily literal and rather often metaphorical. If someone wrote in an email "I feel like killing that person," I would hope that they would not have their privacy invaded, identity released to all of north america, and then be used as an example of 'rich, white male privelege."

Speaking as a poor, brown male; I've used those words "I feel like killing that person", when I was a teenager and didn't know better. It represented a lack of social education at the time and poor class - it did not represent criminal malice.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 18 July 2006 10:16 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
500, even without the email, the Duke young men are privileged.

The impact of the event, the outcome so far and how the accused have been treated has a huge impact on women of colour, and white women, on that campus (and beyond), and what the safety of women means to that university. Which is to say, it means nothing.

Try living in a society where your safety means nothing. Many poor brown men know what that feels like. Most women know this as well.

As for your movie reference, just because men threatening other men with violence is normalized / minimized doesn't mean the rest of us should accept that as reality. As a woman, the threat of potential violence is so ingrained in me I rarely notice it on a day-to-day basis. That doesn't make it right, nor does it mean I'm resigned to the world always being like this. Change is possible. It must be possible.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 18 July 2006 02:25 PM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bigcitygal,

If there was no rape, is it still okay to accuse privileged white men of doing this because they are privileged?

I mean, we won't know until after the trial (assuming there is one), but your comments make it sound like it doesn't matter whether the accusations are true or not. Does it matter to you?


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 18 July 2006 02:36 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Farces:
If there was no rape, is it still okay to accuse privileged white men of doing this because they are privileged?

The men weren't accused because they are privileged. The story is in the news because the men are privileged. The "truth" of the "question": "if there was no rape" is not the position I begin with, or stand with. Read on.

quote:

I mean, we won't know until after the trial (assuming there is one), but your comments make it sound like it doesn't matter whether the accusations are true or not. Does it matter to you?

The truth of the accusations, and the results of the trial, if this gets to trial, are two very different things. Very few rapists are convicted, and a not guilty verdict may have you believe that the men were not guilty, but if that were to come to pass, I will read that as the word of a black woman who's a sex worker is not being held in the same way as the words of privileged white men. And I have such a low view of the world, that not only will this not surprise me, it's what I expect.

All the more reason to applaud this brave woman. And to look a few levels deeper, as the UBUNTU groups is trying to do.

What I know is that women, on the whole, statistically, do not make up rape accusations. Women who withdraw rape accusations do not do so because they weren't raped, they do so because they know the reality of this world, and the thin meaning of "justice" in getting a guilty charge doesn't change the violation of the rape, the police investigation, the trial, the media attention (if any).

Please read the rape=power thread that writer referenced recently. Then read it again.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 18 July 2006 03:20 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The truth of the accusations, and the results of the trial, if this gets to trial, are two very different things.

That is true. But the question then arises whether there is a better way of determining whether accusations are true or not.

True also that some people want to "privilege" the words of white men. Others prefer to "privilege" the testimony of women who make the accusations.

In a jury system, there is a pretty good chance that people of both types will be on the jury.

It isn't fair to anyone to presume that the jury is biased on one side, unless there is some systematic exclusion in operation.

So, overall, I would say that juries do a good job in their role as finders of fact. They are not always right, but neither is anyone else.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 18 July 2006 03:26 PM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let me rephrase the question.

Regardless of how any trials come out, do you, Bigcitygal, think it matters whether the woman was actually raped or not?


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 18 July 2006 04:27 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
The truth of the accusations, and the results of the trial, if this gets to trial, are two very different things.

quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
That is true. But the question then arises whether there is a better way of determining whether accusations are true or not.

No human institution can determine with certainty the truth of any accusation. And, I don’t think there is a method that is better than a jury trial to determine “the truth of the accusations”. If there is a better way, I’d like to hear what that might be.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 18 July 2006 07:16 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Farces, I'm not sure why you're targetting me in this way. In the Feminist Forum.

Yes it matters whether she was raped.

She. Was. Raped.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are so invested in believing that she made it up, and ask yourself where that disbelief in women comes from.

Don't address me directly on this topic again. It's borderline harassment.

I will only ask politely once, and this is it.

[ 18 July 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 18 July 2006 08:16 PM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
True also that some people want to "privilege" the words of white men. Others prefer to "privilege" the testimony of women who make the accusations.

In a jury system, there is a pretty good chance that people of both types will be on the jury.

It isn't fair to anyone to presume that the jury is biased on one side, unless there is some systematic exclusion in operation.


SOrry Jeff are you trying to say that persons testimony is not influenced by their social location or position of privillege?

The homeless person's word is as good as the police officer?

The Doctor's word is taken the same as the psychiatric patient?

A sex trade worker and woman of colour is equal to that of the all American frat boy?


We know this is not true the same as there is ample evidence that the criminal justice system is biased on a basis of race class and gender. There is enough research on the issue, I can't believe this is even a point of debate still here.

quote:
Regardless of how any trials come out, do you, Bigcitygal, think it matters whether the woman was actually raped or not?

The reality is there are no "facts" as you would like to believe there are two opposing stories those of the accused and those of the woman. It is unlikely that you have either the awareness or the emotional courage to assess why you find it necessary to believe the words of the accused rather than the woman, to others the reason is rather obvious.

quote:
No human institution can determine with certainty the truth of any accusation. And, I don’t think there is a method that is better than a jury trial to determine “the truth of the accusations”. If there is a better way, I’d like to hear what that might be.

These are British rape stats but I imagine the rates are similar for the U.S.

quote:
Few like to look at them, but the statistics on rape convictions are unbearably bleak: reported rape has trebled in the past decade; less than 6% of reported rapes result in a conviction; less than 20% of rapes are reported to the police. There is more rape, and it is easier to get away with.

Considering these stats a jury trial would be a pretty piss poor manner of determining the truth.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 18 July 2006 08:33 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Considering these stats a jury trial would be a pretty piss poor manner of determining the truth.


Well, like I said, what do you suggest as an alternative?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 18 July 2006 08:45 PM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well, like I said, what do you suggest as an alternative?

What is 6% of 20% work out to 1.2% that would be 98.8% false negatives it would be more accurate if you just asked the victim, not even the most paranoid of "men's rights" advocates would claim that 98.8% of sexual assault charges are false.

The first step in finding an alternative is acknowledging how poorly the status quo is operating. It does not take that much imagination to consider the possibility of designing a system that is more supportive and sensitive to the needs of victims.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 18 July 2006 08:51 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
It does not take that much imagination to consider the possibility of designing a system that is more supportive and sensitive to the needs of victims.

What might be a system that is more supportive and sensitive to the needs of the victims?

In any event, the question remains: What alternative system would be superior to the jury system to determine whether or not a criminal act occurred?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 19 July 2006 04:42 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Well, like I said, what do you suggest as an alternative?


Sven, read "The Story of Jane Doe: A Book About Rape"

N.R.Kissed, thanks for your comments.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 19 July 2006 05:13 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's be clear here: I have done no no "targetting." There is no harrassment, borderline or otherwise. I asked a fair question. I have done nothing wrong. As a courtesy, I will abide by BigCityGal's request not to address her directly, but this should not be taken as an admission of guilt on my part because I. Have. Done. Nothing. Wrong. Here.

At this point, I think it is pretty likely that the Duke LAX players did not commit rape, but I also think we will have a better idea on that question in the fullness of time. If anybody is interested on why I have formed the (tentative, subject to additional factual info) opinion that I have, then check the Wikipedia, which I consider to be a good source of facts as sources of facts go. If I am called for the jury, I will be sure to let them know that I have been reading about the case in the media and starting to form opinions. If I were a betting person, I would bet against a trial occurring on any rape charges, though.

[ 19 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 19 July 2006 05:54 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"The reality is there are no "facts" as you would like to believe there are two opposing stories those of the accused and those of the woman. It is unlikely that you have either the awareness or the emotional courage to assess why you find it necessary to believe the words of the accused rather than the woman, to others the reason is rather obvious."

You have no idea about me and you are guessing wrong. From March thru May, I wasn't following the case very closely. I was basically aware that there was a frat party with lacrosse players and a hired entertainment woman who said she had been raped. During those months of vague awareness, my tentative opinion was that the rape occurred and that the frat boys were trying to cover it up. I formed this initial opinion on the case because I know how frat boys are and because I know most women don't lie about something as emotionally painful as rape.

During June, I bacame vaguely aware that there were serious doubts about whether the rape happened, and I went into "equipoise" where I did not have an opinion one way or the other (and did not do any research).

When I started reading about the topic here in July, I got more curious and checked the Wikipedia. then, and only then, did I change my opinion to the point where I think it is likelier that there was no rape.

Obviously, you are incorrect about the way I came to my opinion on this case. I don't find it "neccessary" to believe one way or the other -- what I really want is the truth. I also don't find it "neccessary" to believe the accused brats in the sense that I spent a couple of months *not* believing them.

[ 19 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 19 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 19 July 2006 07:24 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When I started reading about the topic here in July, I got more curious and checked the Wikipedia. then, and only then, did I change my opinion to the point where I think it is likelier that there was no rape.

Obviously, you are incorrect about the way I came to my opinion on this case. I don't find it "neccessary" to believe one way or the other -- what I really want is the truth. I also don't find it "neccessary" to believe the accused brats in the sense that I spent a couple of months *not* believing them.


Ah yes Trial by Wikipedia

So what is there on Wikipedia apart from a carefully crafted narrative based on claims made by the defence or the credible news sources such as Fox or the Duke Campus news with the sole intent to discreidt the claims of the victim. These are your "facts" this is your "evidence"?

In the first few sentences the victim is immediately identified as black , single mother and sex trade worker firmly establishing in the reader all the associated negative cultural assumptions associated with those social locations.

The second paragraph goes on make the claims that the victim had intercourse prior to the event(imagine a sex-trade worker having sex) that she had drank an alcoholic drink and taken a muscle relaxant. Promiscuous? Drunk? Drugs?

To anyone familiar with Sexual assault cases all these factors are common in defence narratives built to discredit victims. The frequency with which these themes arise in these narratives would raise doubts for a sceptic.

Does Wikipedia offer counter evidence on behalf of the victim of course not, the narrative is based on deep rooted racist, sexist and classist assumptions that are embedded North American dominant ideology. So where is your truth or is it that the reiteration of the assumptions of the dominant ideology are familiar and comfortable to white America, so it gets called the truth?

[ 19 July 2006: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 19 July 2006 07:37 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't say trial by wikipedia. I said trial by trial, if there is a trial. If there is not a trial, then: (1) yes, the wikipedia is the best fact source going; and (2) supporters of the woman do have a chance to input / correct the wikipedia (that is one big reason the wikipedia is a better source for facts than almost any other media source).

Like I said in the post above: when I heard the words "black," "stripper," "Duke," "lacrosse," and "rape." My initial inclination was that a rape had occurred, and, more specifically, that a black stripper had been cruelly raped by a large group of white (or mostly white) college athletes). Like I said, I operated under this assumption for a period of some weeks. NR Kissed, you seem to be not listening to that part of my narrative. Maybe because it is inconsistent with your preconceptions about Farces the person? Listening is very, very important.

[ 19 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 19 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 19 July 2006 07:58 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
didn't say trial by wikipedia. I said trial by trial, if there is a trial. If there is not a trial, then: (1) yes, the wikipedia the wikipedia is the best fact source going; and (2) supporters of the woman do have a chance to input / correct the wikipedia (that is one big reason the wikipedia is a better source for facts than almost any other media source).

The general reliability of Wikipedia does not guarantee that this piece in particular is not heavily biased. If you look at the sources and the lack counter evidence it is obviously biased. The tone of the piece is also sexist and racist.

quote:
Like I said in the post above: when I heard the words "black," "stripper," "Duke," "lacrosse," and "rape." My initial inclination was that a rape had occurred, and, more specifically, that a black stripper had been cruelly raped by a large group of white (or mostly white) college athletes). Like I said, I operated under this assumption for a period of some weeks. NR Kissed, you seem to be not listening to that part of my narrative. Maybe because it is inconsistent with your preconceptions about Farces the person? Listening is very, very important.

Thanks for the tip on listening although i can guarantee as a therapist I am listening, I just happen to be finely tuned into what is not being said. What is not being said is how your opinion was swayed by information that is so clearly biased? Your willingness to view what is written on wikipedia as fact is indeed curious. My belief then is that you have a certain affinity to the embedded assumptions of the dominant ideology. I don't think it is a stretch that an American lawyer is going to be operating under the assumptions of dominant cultural beliefs a very far fetched position.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 19 July 2006 08:12 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

. . .Your willingness to view what is written on wikipedia as fact . . .


I did not say that.

Your willingness to assume that you know the source of my opinions better than I myself do is silly and false.

Other than here, it looks like other feminist sites are beginning to pull in their necks on this case by expressing some skepticism about the alleged victim's changing story. My bold prediction: the BABBLE FF eventually will have to as well. It will be funny to see how face gets saved here if that comes to pass. My guess is that threads on the topic will be closed down, and no posts will be allowed on this case to save embarrassment. I hope this place has more integrity than that, though.

[ 19 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 19 July 2006 08:15 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rape = power

And to quote Michelle here:

quote:
We've had a long history of arguing with well-meaning guys who get offended when women in this forum ask them to not dominate the conversation by directing it where they think it should go. I'd really rather not have a repeat of that here ...

Please stop hijacking the Feminism Forum. It is not an act of solidarity. Instead, it is hostile. It is aggressive. It is dominating. It is more of the same oppression feminists are fighting against.

If there's something you don't know about, and want to learn, do your own homework. For example, asking whether feminists have proposed alternatives to the current criminal justice system simply reveals your raging ignorance. Educate yourself, then come back here once you've got a clue or two.

Feminists did not create this forum to stop our discussions, hold your hand through our oppression, and spoon-feed you the fruits of our hard work. In fact, that's exactly the kind of shit women are unshackling themselves from.

There are books, there are articles, there are many feminist items of interest on a thing called the Internet. If you care, check them out. Take a course. Don't come here demanding answers to questions that have been answered time and again, if you would only bother to look. It's lazy. It's insulting. It's alienating. It drives feminists from this forum.

[ 19 July 2006: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 July 2006 08:19 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, I've been alerted to this thread, so I'm going to step in.

First of all, Farces, you're starting to dominate the discussion in this thread again so it's time to step back. We understand what your point of view is now. In fact, perhaps all the guys in this thread could step back and let the women discuss this issue for a while.

That said...I'm conflicted because I agree with Farces to a large degree. Just because a woman has accused someone of rape - even if they're frat boys and there's a good possibility that they did it - doesn't make it true. And it's extremely important whether it's true or not. I could be a total idiot and say all sorts of stupid, sexist, racist, irresponsible things in my private conversations with people - but if I'm falsely accused of doing something heinous which I haven't done, just because my personality sucks doesn't mean I'm guilty. And I also agree with Farces that it's beyond the pale for the police to leak private correspondence by the accused which does not break the law.

As for "trial by Wikipedia" - well, what's the difference between that and trial by discussion forum thread? What's the difference between assuming the accuser is telling the truth because of her gender and socioeconomic status, and assuming the accused is guilty because of his gender and socioeconomic status? None of us actually know what happened. We have two conflicting stories.

As a feminist, I want to see men who rape women face the music. As a civil libertarian, I want people who accuse people of crimes (including rape) to have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt before any punishment happens to the accused. I strongly believe in "innocent until proven guilty". If a person reads something like that Wikipedia article and it raises reasonable doubts for them, then as someone who wasn't there and doesn't know for sure, I think it's reasonable for them to not only not assume that the accused did it, but going by the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", assume that the person did NOT do it. I don't think that's an anti-feminist stand to take.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 19 July 2006 08:55 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for "trial by Wikipedia" - well, what's the difference between that and trial by discussion forum thread? What's the difference between assuming the accuser is telling the truth because of her gender and socioeconomic status, and assuming the accused is guilty because of his gender and socioeconomic status? None of us actually know what happened. We have two conflicting stories.

I was responding to claims made that the information presented in wikipedia was "fact" a claim made in previous posts.

To me the claims on wikipedia are not only incredibly biased they are also highly suspicious in terms of certain assumptions made and prevalent themes. I haven't made any claims as to guilt or innocence. I have raised issues that i find disturbing in the context of what we know about rape victims experience in the criminal justice system and the manner in which they are portrayed. We do know that the majority of assaults are not reported and of those reported do not go to trial. We also know that the experience of victims from the time of reporting onward is for the most part brutal and traumatizing. For these reason I have little faith in the criminal justice system to deal with such matters.

I would like to emphasize that I am only responding to some gross inaccuracies and mischarterizations that were presented having said that I have no desire to dominate so I will now bow out.

[ 19 July 2006: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 19 July 2006 10:15 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, thanks for your intervention. You've said some things that I would like to respond to.

I'm not a lawyer, but looking at the frequency of rape, and knowing that a woman is most likely to be raped by someone she knows, this makes the "burden of proof" and all those other legal terms much more likely to not result in a "guilty" verdict.

N.R.Kissed and writer's posts above, as well as my own work in the anti-violence against women field, indicate clearly that there has been work done by women and women's anti-violence groups and there are many alternatives possible. Not my job to dig them up for anyone, not after this thread.

As for "innocent until proven guilty", I can make my own educated assumptions about the guilt of the accused men in this case. I'm not a libertarian.

Just as men can say on this thread "I don't think she was raped" so can I say that not only do I think she was, but also that her attackers will very likely not see justice.

quote:
As a feminist, I want to see men who rape women face the music. As a civil libertarian, I want people who accuse people of crimes (including rape) to have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt before any punishment happens to the accused

Nobody has suggested that we round up the three fuckwads that did this and shoot them. Nor am I suggesting that now. Some of us are merely asserting that since women rarely make false accusations that it's extremely likely that rape took place. It's not a radical position to take given the information we have.

From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martha (but not Stewart)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12335

posted 19 July 2006 03:49 PM      Profile for Martha (but not Stewart)     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
As for "innocent until proven guilty", I can make my own educated assumptions about the guilt of the accused men in this case. ... Just as men can say on this thread "I don't think she was raped" so can I say that not only do I think she was, but also that her attackers will very likely not see justice.

A comment about "innocent until proven guilty".

This slogan reflects the very high standards of proof placed on the prosecution in a criminal trial, and the concommitantly low standards of proof placed on the defence. The prosecution is required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the defence, however, is not required to prove innocence: it suffices for the defence to establish a reasonable doubt.

In other contexts -- for example, in a message-board thread -- it might be appropriate to apply different standards. For example, I might believe that X committed a crime -- with, say, 60% confidence -- and at the same time believe, given the evidence presented in the trial, that the appropriate verdict is 'not guilty'.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 19 July 2006 06:57 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We are talking about rape here. The only two people who KNOW it happened are the person raped, and the accuser, as far as these claims of 'false accusations'? Jesus, are we in the year 2006? Do you know what the stats are for this? Very LOW. I can tell you as a person who has been raped, reported my rape and saw Sweet fa happen, that many, many, many men do not, will not, ever see a prison, or get counseling. What I see though, far and wide, is the assumption that rape is something women just 'make up' because I guess we must WANT to go to a trial upon which WE will be tried. My sexuality will be at issue. NOT the rapist's. Hell, if the guy raped another woman? Inadmissible.

Rape is not dealt with properly in the criminal courts, even remotely properly. Read Jane Doe vs. The Metro Police.

In a feminist forum people are still claiming women 'make it up' and that the man has to be proven guilty beyond a 'reasonable doubt'. Does anyone at all besides BCG know what a 'found' and 'unfound' rape claim is? Let me tell you then. A 'found' rape claim is when the cops think you are credible enough. An unfound one (and therefore dropped, not investigated, forgotten screw you you bitch for being in the wrong place too bad too sad) is made based upon the police's own impressions of the women at the time of the interview. Was she sufficiently tearful? No? Well then, no rape happened. Was she coherent and does she have a past in activism/ Yes? well then, she's just a shit disturber. Does she have a mental illness? Yes? Oh well, then she is definitely making it up.

If anyone even remotely think the court system is biased against men in rape then that person is highly delusional. The courts are stacked in favour of the rapist.

No need to feel bad for me re: the rape. I have dealt with it and I have no doubt in my mind that the man who did it, and who confessed to me on the phone that he knew he did it and was 'only experimenting' will not spend a single day in jail. Or get help.

Edited to add: I am one in many.

[ 19 July 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 20 July 2006 04:32 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stargazer, thank you for sharing your story, again, in the hopes that it may make a difference.

There's a cultural belief out there that sex workers can't be raped or sexually assaulted, ever. Because rape is lack of consent and hasn't a woman, just because she's a sex worker, given up her right to consent and is basically open for sex at all times? Consensual or rape doesn't matter? Ditto Black women and other women of colour who have been hyper-sexualized by racist misogyny.

Enough. That's racist sexist woman-hating bullshit. Can those on this thread that have been fighting against this possibly look beyond this one case and see what underlying beliefs are holding these "cultural beliefs" together? And that real women in the here and now are experiencing rape and sexual assault, with no system in our world that says, at any point, "this was wrong"?

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 July 2006 04:45 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think what's happening is that we're talking past each other. I don't believe there is a widespread phenomenon of women making up rape stories. As others have said, there's a difference between whether something actually happened, and whether it can be proven or not.

I honestly don't know what to do about rape, and the fact that it's so hard to prove in a court of law. I agree that the justice system is not equipped to deal with rape, simply because there is often little hard evidence. It's easy to prove that sex has occurred - not so easy to prove that sex occurred without consent. I have no idea what the solution to that is.

I have noticed that quite often, people on the left are very concerned with due process for people accused of crimes. We tend not to trust authority blindly and we don't believe that just because the police charge someone with a crime that it means they probably did it. And most lefties I know are also concerned about the fact that people who are accused of crimes are too often convicted before their trial, and libeled in print by people saying they did it before they're actually convicted. The problem is, we're coming up against is a crime that's easy to get away with because the proof often comes down to one person's word against another's, and that's not generally strong enough evidence to convict, even if it did happen.

I don't think anyone here is saying we don't believe the victim because she's a person of colour and a sex worker. That may be the prevailing attitude in society in general, but I think it's pretty unfair to ascribe that attitude to the people posting in this thread. There's a difference between saying you don't think it's been proven and you don't think it happened. And for those of us don't believe we should state in print media that a person did something wrong when it hasn't been proven, or for those of us who go even further and assume that the person is innocent until they're proven guilty, I don't think it's fair to take that as evidence that we don't believe rape victims because of their gender, their race, or their socioeconomic status.

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 20 July 2006 05:52 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
thanks Michelle. Your latest post said how I feel better than I could.

I wrote more about this case, but then I remembered that you said to not dominate the thread, which seems like good advice to me, so I will send you the rest of my comments in a pm.


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Summer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12491

posted 20 July 2006 07:59 AM      Profile for Summer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
There's a difference between saying you don't think it's been proven and you don't think it happened.

quote:

When I started reading about the topic here in July, I got more curious and checked the Wikipedia. then, and only then, did I change my opinion to the point where I think it is likelier that there was no rape.


Actually, there is one poster here who believes that there was no rape. He didn't say that he thinks there was a rape, but that at trial there will be a lack of evidence and the men will be acquitted. He said there was no rape. I can only infer from this statement that he thinks that the alleged victim is lying. In my experience, a person with this attitude about one rape will likely have it about several rapes. Stargazer and BCG are two posters who know about this topic. I give them a lot more credit than someone who reads a wiki article and embodies years of sexual assault myths that the feminist community has been trying so hard to prove wrong.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 20 July 2006 09:59 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with you Summer.

quote:
but I think it's pretty unfair to ascribe that attitude to the people posting in this thread.

It is entirely fair. Farces was being incredibly ignorant and dominating and did he apologize to anyone except you to say he would bow out of it? How nice. After his analysis, she was lying (or in code - he IS innocent). And of coursem, he completely ignored the posts by myself and BCG, indicting he doesn't really give a rat's ass what experience says.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 20 July 2006 10:51 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK,

here's a tidbit of insight which some might find interesting to ponder, or to hate,
I can not under any circumstance visualize myself or any of my closer friends ever doing anything particularly harmful in the sense discussed in this thread. What I can visualize, however, is being falsely accused and not being taken at my word. However irrational this may be, when I think of the terms falsely accused and innocent until proven guilty, my first mental images are of kindergarten through grade 11; where it was apparent to most of us that the teachers would side with their favourites - usually nice, white girls - and the administration would side with the kids of the parents who donate money to the school.

I do not know if the statistic for false accusations of abuse is 0.63%, 5% or 28%. Neither does anyone on this board. What I do know is that out in the real world a lot of people are egocentric, including women. Somebody on another thread mentioned making rape accusations a part of civil litigation rather than criminal prosecution. There's a lot of money to be made in litigation at less risk and more ease and that's why far more false accusations have been observed.

Quite frankly I'd rather have ten guilty people with innocent verdicts then one innocent person with a guilty verdict. This is a break from my usual utilitarianism, but it is not specific to rape. I feel the same way about paedophilia, murder and Guantanamo. It's also why I oppose castration of paedophiles and the death penalty which are two things I suspect the majority of the population believes in. Irrational or not, I have no trust of authority and experts to always make the right decision without aggressive checks and balances.

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 20 July 2006 10:54 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Quite frankly I'd rather have ten guilty people with innocent verdicts then one innocent person with a guilty verdict.

Franky I think you should stay the hell out of this forum. Frankly until you have been raped, or have experience related to things like, you know, real life, you should get out of this forum. You'd rather she 10 guilty guys go free huh? You and the police.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 20 July 2006 11:04 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All right, I'll then stay off the feminism forum for an indefinite period. I can't disagree that these victims have had it bad; I just think people like Milgaard (23 years!), or many of the Guantanamo detainees have it far worse.

And while my story may have seemed trivial to you, and I admit I did write it in such a way, it's not so trivial for a 9 year old to stare out the balcony and contemplate jumping off, or an eight year old to put a meat knife to his chest and to stop only because of the pain it would do to his mother. It's even less trivial for these thoughts to continuously occur from age seven to eighteen.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 20 July 2006 11:23 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are digging a bigger hole for yourself. Rape is not the same as murder and no rapist gets put in jail for that length of time unless he is Bernardo or Clifford Olsen. Talk about being dramatic. And please, trivalizing rape is not cool. You have no idea who has it worse.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 20 July 2006 11:24 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
". . . incredibly ignorant and dominating . . ."

Rude, Stargazer. Not a nice way to treat a guest. With comments like these, consider me back in the thread. I don't think your analysis of the Duke Rape Case is particularly impressive, but you don't see me calling you "ignorant!" Please treat me at least as nicely as I treat you. That is a golden rule of sorts. I don't need your insults because I have done nothing wrong here.

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 20 July 2006 11:28 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry to break my own word,

When I used the word "trivial," i was referring to the way in which I wrote of my own story, which I why I then pointed out that it was in fact, not so trivial, and the apparent trivialness was just an effect of my superficial writing style at the time.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 20 July 2006 11:33 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
hey farces, frankly I ould give a shit if you consider nme rude. YOU have proven yourself rude, domineering and apparently willing to completely overlook real experiences. Too bad for you. I don't give a rat's ass who you know and who the hell you think you are with your bravado

"consider myself back in here" bullshit.

You got away with this twice. Now I don't think you will - not again.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 20 July 2006 11:34 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh and Apple, my mistake. Sorry about that.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 20 July 2006 11:37 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stargazer: Don't address me directly on this topic again. It has become harassment on your part.
From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 July 2006 11:38 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
You'd rather she 10 guilty guys go free huh? You and the police.

Than one innocent person convicted? So would I.

Maybe I should stay the hell out of the forum too?

As for your characterization of Farces, I disagree. Just because he is not convinced by the evidence in this one case does not mean he has dismissed your experience in any way, nor does it mean he has decided that most rape claims are false or anything else. I am watching this thread carefully for that sort of blanket claim and I would've shut it down quickly had I seen it.

Farces, no, you're not back in the thread. I appreciate that you recognized before that you were dominating the conversation, and I also don't think you have said what you've been accused of saying. But coming back and getting into a pissing match about it isn't going to make things any better. By the way, I read your pm by e-mail, and I agree with it - I am tempted to repost it here (with your permission) because I think it reflects your ideas more accurately than your public posts. But at this point, I don't think that would be helpful anyhow.

And once again, Stargazer, Farces hasn't "gotten away with" anything due to "who he knows". He bowed out of the thread when I asked him to, and he didn't start up again until you started calling him names. What did you expect? Would you just let that stand if someone did that to you? I don't think so.

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Summer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12491

posted 20 July 2006 11:46 AM      Profile for Summer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
false accusations of rape happen no more often than false reports of other types of crime: about 2 to 4%, which means that 96 to 98% of reports are true. (University of Alberta - 'Sexual Assault and the Law in Canada' )

I found other websites that state that false accusations of rape happen less than other crimes. The only places I found assertions that women are likely to make false accusations of rape were on anti-feminist websites and forums. For people who share those views, you may be more welcome in a forum other than this one.

If this case goes to trial, the issue of guilt or innocence will be decided there. I don't think anyone here has suggested that they want to see innocent people put in jail for crimes they didn't commit. What some posters are saying is that a person who makes allegations of sexual assualt is likely telling the truth and to paint her as a liar before any evidence has even been heard is likely being done on the basis of sexist stereotypes about rape.

Congratulations on setting up a straw man argument that someone here has said that they want to see innocent people convicted and put in jail.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 20 July 2006 12:00 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry Michelle, I am the few other women here clearly do not see it that way. And yes, I absolutely think that if the comments made by him were made by anyone else that person would have been out of here. Now I am supposed to stay out of the feminist forum because he was being an asshole?

I will simply stay away from Rabble. No man should get preference with his views over females who have gone through the system or are aware of the system.

Farces, continue on.

This is a definite bye to Rabble. It has been a great place but i will not stand here and take this crap from this guy and then have a moderator tell me I should leave!


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 20 July 2006 12:03 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm breaking my own word again, really rude to berate someone with technicalities after they said they'd leave.

Summer, in introductory statistics course they teach the concepts of type I error and type II error. Depending on your paradigm, failing to get a guilty verdict when one is guilty is one type and a obtaining a guilty verdict when one is innocent is the other type. It's statistically impossible in most settings to effectively reduce both, and it usually naturally arised that if you implement measures to reduce one you inevitably increase the other. That's not a strawman.

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 July 2006 12:07 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Summer:
Congratulations on setting up a straw man argument that someone here has said that they want to see innocent people convicted and put in jail.

Oh, is this aimed at me? I certainly hope not. Because I didn't say that at all. Here's how the conversation went.

First of all, 500_Apples wrote:

quote:
Quite frankly I'd rather have ten guilty people with innocent verdicts then one innocent person with a guilty verdict.

Clearly saying that if given the choice between ten guilty people going free, and one innocent person being convicted, then it is preferable for the ten to go free.

Stargazer responded,

quote:
You'd rather she 10 guilty guys go free huh? You and the police.

Except, that's not what he said. He didn't say he WANTED ten guilty people to go free. He said he would RATHER have ten guilty people go free THAN for one innocent person to be convicted. See the difference? He was accused of saying something pretty awful, which he actually didn't say.

My response is that I also would want to see ten guilty people go free than one innocent person convicted. It's a pretty standard sentiment, not terribly shocking.

It's also relevant when discussing standards of proof when it comes to rape cases, because the problem with rape cases is that with the current standards of proof, it's very difficult to get a conviction. But if you lessen the standards of proof, for any crime, then it's quite possible that innocent people could be convicted.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 July 2006 12:14 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
Now I am supposed to stay out of the feminist forum because he was being an asshole?

Nobody has asked you to stay out of the feminism forum. Good grief. The one person who WAS asked to stay out of this thread, you started insulting after he agreed to leave! I don't get this. You got what you wanted - I told him to stay out of the thread and he agreed. And then you started up insulting him after he left and agreed not to come back to the thread. What am I supposed to do about that?

quote:
No man should get preference with his views over females who have gone through the system or are aware of the system.

He hasn't gotten preference over you. He was asked to leave the thread and you were not.

quote:
This is a definite bye to Rabble. It has been a great place but i will not stand here and take this crap from this guy and then have a moderator tell me I should leave![/QB]

What the hell? Are you dreaming or am I? I never told you that you should leave! I told HIM that HE should leave this thread! As for taking crap from him, of course you shouldn't have to take crap from him, but you know what? He shouldn't have to take crap from you either. If that's considered biased moderating, then so be it.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 20 July 2006 12:56 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
there is an underlying dishonesty to the general tenor of farces postings---he makes certain that they are hard to pinpoint but writer had the idea.
this is why my furr goes up and perhaps why others get annoyed.

we know that the university offered this woman alot of money. one would assume that they had a good reason to believe that their guys weren't behaving well.

we know that globally, men are raping women in huge numbers all the time and going unpunished and usually even unreported.

most women on this site have friends who've been raped or they themselves have been assaulted.

we know that women who are poor, in the sex trade, in a minority group, etc, etc, are in a position of even less power than most women.

it has ever been a male ploy to scream for justice if they think they can weasel out of a conviction---it's done all the time---it has always been difficult to convict a man when it's his word against hers[at least we don't have all male judges and juries anymore] and they well know this.

the history of assault on women by men, the bias in the entire system against women and the almost knee jerk reaction of many men to assume false accusation[in spite of it's rarity] makes the discussion of 'innocent[the guys not the woman, note]until proven guilty seem false and contrived and dishonourable on this thread.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Western Waffler
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12909

posted 20 July 2006 01:18 PM      Profile for Western Waffler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Tip-toeing quietly into the room, I look around and ask myself the question "why can't intelligent educated, (formerly or otherwise) and literate people discuss important issues without insult so that people who love to lurk hear all sides of the isuue and learn. Quietly I close the door.
From: vancouver island | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 20 July 2006 01:23 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because WW, since the time of the Big Bang, probably to the time of the final Pththth, The cosmos has not worked that way.
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Western Waffler
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12909

posted 20 July 2006 01:31 PM      Profile for Western Waffler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hopefully time will change that approach. Click
From: vancouver island | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 July 2006 01:35 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I do not know if the statistic for false accusations of abuse is 0.63%, 5% or 28%. Neither does anyone on this board.

Michelle, I don’t think the comment about strawmen was directed at you but at 500_apples who posted the above.

quote:
there is an underlying dishonesty to the general tenor of farces postings---he makes certain that they are hard to pinpoint but writer had the idea. this is why my furr goes up and perhaps why others get annoyed.

I felt the same way here and in another thread in this forum when dealing with both 500_apples and farce, I have just been keeping my yap shut for the most part because I am not interested in getting in shit for being “rude” to “guests”. I think they are spending an awful lot of time in the FF subtly and not so subtly denying a lot of experiences and then substituting their own as a comparison of suffering.

I agree wholeheartedly with the following:

quote:
the history of assault on women by men, the bias in the entire system against women and the almost knee jerk reaction of many men to assume false accusation[in spite of it's rarity] makes the discussion of 'innocent[the guys not the woman, note]until proven guilty seem false and contrived and dishonourable on this thread.

So many other situations, like cop killers or child molesters for example, we take the word of the police and the legal system, here on babble and in other places. But when it comes to rape victims and homeless people we always have somebody crying out to not judge the accused before they are tried. Why is belief suspended regarding the ability of the police to do there job when the victim is a marginalized person? Do we really think that rich white kids are disproportionately being wrongfully convicted that we need to talk that spew in the forum? Why is a rape victim so easily doubted?

quote:
Tip-toeing quietly into the room, I look around and ask myself the question "why can't intelligent educated, (formerly or otherwise) and literate people discuss important issues without insult so that people who love to lurk hear all sides of the isuue and learn.

Because sometimes people can deal terrible insults while being completely civil and polite. If I am polite in making a racist comment I’m still a racist and it’s going to make people furious and they are going to let their emotions show. Issues of gender aren’t any different. What’s the other sides of racism we could be discussing – do you really think that would fly on babble or any other progressive space? I think sometimes people expect that women not be as angry as victims of racism or homophobia and that’s a mistake and leads to finger wagging at rude, angry women and I hate that.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Western Waffler
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12909

posted 20 July 2006 01:57 PM      Profile for Western Waffler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scout fair enough. I learn more by listening than talking. With your anger on those issues, are they with you forever? what comes after the anger? What is it that the average guy should do in his daily life to help you shed this anger. Can I expect my wonderful 16 yaer old daughter to live with this kind of anger all of her life?
From: vancouver island | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 20 July 2006 02:09 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Can I expect my wonderful 16 yaer old daughter to live with this kind of anger all of her life?

Likely. Odds of her being sexaully assaulted or harassed in some way are very high.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Western Waffler
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12909

posted 20 July 2006 02:27 PM      Profile for Western Waffler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And that is what scares me. What do I need to do to help reduce those odds without stifling her growth into an independent thinking/acting person of her own power(not over others)??
From: vancouver island | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 20 July 2006 02:37 PM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
most women on this site have friends who've been raped

Point 1: And some men are married to women who have been raped. And some men have mothers who have been raped. Some sisters. Thanks for asking.

Point 2: I don't care what your intuition tells you. The real reason that it is hard to pinpoint where I have said something wrong is that I have said nothing wrong here. It is as simple as that.

Point 3: If you don't want me to directly address you, then please at least have the reciprocal courtesy of not directly addressing me. Should go without saying. Please.

[ 20 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 20 July 2006 02:58 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ww ---if you go and make an active study of feminist issues here and globally, you will likely become a changed person--you will have a better understanding of all the women in your life and you will understand how social justice in every area of human society is part of feminism.
if you study history through a feminine lens, you may end up with a broken heart and an anger that can't just 'be nice'

From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 July 2006 03:33 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it would be best if, when someone is asked to leave a thread, that the other participants stop addressing that person, or talking about them. It's not really fair to bait someone into responding in a thread when they've been asked by a moderator not to post in it anymore. Not too many of us could resist that.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 20 July 2006 04:09 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What some posters are saying is that a person who makes allegations of sexual assualt is likely telling the truth and to paint her as a liar before any evidence has even been heard is likely being done on the basis of sexist stereotypes about rape.

On the other hand, presuming the truth of an allegation before trial runs directly contrary to a fundamental principle of justice, which is that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 20 July 2006 07:51 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i wasn't baiting farces, michelle, and i certainly wasn't speaking to him. i was speaking to all the other women who have been trying to have an unfettered conversation here.

this guy is constantly declaring that he has done nothing wrong and yet the effect that he is having seems to discourage women from posting
so there is a problem and especially in the feminist forum, this kind of problem should be named. women will just stop bothering to post and that is sad.

men have often ,in my experience, stayed just behind the line of appropriate behavior--they get away on a technicality, as it were.
it's not helpful for me in this forum to be continually dealing with him---i'm here to talk to and learn from other feminists.
i'm posting this publicly because i have good reason to believe that i'm not alone in this although others may have relationships with you or him and worry about saying this.

i truly do think that many other men on this forum stumble in innocence and are really interested in
learning. i actually have a lot of empathy for them.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 21 July 2006 04:32 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

Likely. Odds of her being sexaully assaulted or harassed in some way are very high.


The last figures I heard for sexual assault of women (in Canada) was one in three. One in four before the age of 18. A reminder before anyone gets up in arms that sexual assault is not the same as rape and includes many other forms of sexual violence.

"Half of Canadian women (51%) have been victims of at least one act of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16" From Status of Women Canada

morningstar: Wow. Thank you so much for your words, again. You have a very eloquent way of putting things.

And Stargazer, I really hope that you don't stay away from the feminist forum, or any other forums (fora?) here on babble. Your voice is much needed and much appreciated. I didn't interpret Michelle's post as asking you to stay away. Please don't stay away. And check your PMs.

As for this thread, I can't contribute intelligently to legal discussions, as my knowledge and expertise are in other areas. I find that social and societal elements are more interesting to discuss (and of course that's where I gots lots to say). Most people here know me as a macro root-causes kinda gal.

World wide sexual Assault Statistics

METRAC (Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence Against Women and Children

[edited to add links]

[ 21 July 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 21 July 2006 04:45 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know Michelle did not tell me to stay away, and I love her to pieces, but, this man has got to stay out of the FF forum. And never.address.me.directly. (That last part was a joke). Really, he has got to stay out of it. When women in here feel intimidated and it is certainly not just me, then it should be crystal clear he stay out.

One more thing. It is not baiting to challenge the words of someone who was asked to leave the forum. The words cannot just slide off people's backs and I think it unfair we cannot address.this.persons.words.directly. His words caused a lot of problems for a few women here. To stop a discussion on those words is not what this forum is supposed to be about.

If Farces stays out - permanently, I will feel safe in posting again. That's the crucial bottom line for me.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 21 July 2006 04:58 AM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just my two cents - I agree generally that when someone is asked to leave a thread one shouldn't bait them. but this is the feminist forum and discussions about particular topics or ways of putting things shouldn't cease when one poster is brought up short.

I also think it is fair for the feminists here to look at the totality of a poster's "oeuvre" if you'll pardon the expression. I think Farces got off on the wrong foot in the FF and it seems to me that the mods have been carefully educating him, presumably because they believe he can be a productive member of babble. However, that kind of careful approach is not always s.o.p. around here - I'm thinking for example of the somewhat harsher response that Sean Tisdall got in another thread a few weeks ago.

I think it is problematic for a male poster to constantly act defensively when his remarks are criticized by feminists in the feminist forum. I would contrast that reaction to someone like WW who, at least, appears to be asking sincere questions.

Finally, the criminal law standards discussion is fine, but that can't be the only construct by which we discuss allegations of rape. I haven't seen much discussion of the appropriate criminal outcome in this case except by those stressing that it's necessary to maintain the standard of beyond reas. doubt. As a lawyer, I agree. But being acquitted on that standard doesn't mean you aren't guilty - just that the prosecution couldn't make out its case. We (meaning feminists) don't have to accept a verdict as the end of discussion about a case like this.


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 July 2006 06:15 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pookie:
Just my two cents - I agree generally that when someone is asked to leave a thread one shouldn't bait them. but this is the feminist forum and discussions about particular topics or ways of putting things shouldn't cease when one poster is brought up short.

I didn't say that discussion of the topic should end. I'm saying that it's not fair to keep talking about someone after they've been asked to leave the thread, even if you're unhappy with the way he stated something. You can't have it both ways - you can't say, "I want him to leave the thread so he won't argue with me anymore, but I want to be able to keep arguing against him and accusing him of stuff and insulting him once he can't respond!" That's unfair, and has always been recognized as unfair on babble. So it would be really great if people could stop talking about him now and continue with the thread topic.

[ 21 July 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Farces
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12588

posted 21 July 2006 06:56 AM      Profile for Farces   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle,

Any chance we can have Stargazer tossed from this thread. She keep insulting me, which is especially bad because I have done nothing wrong here. It is beginning to annoy me and it really isn't fair.

I know that some people believe in "group culpability," but I hope you can give my comments on these threads a fair hearing. People who read only what Stargazer writes about me will feel that I am some kind of antifeminist thug and that is just not the case. My comments just don't support that reading at all. It is not even close.

I think giving Stargazer a week or so to cool her heels would make her a better feminist. Fairer about respecting reasonable opinions of others and less shrill and abusive in her tone. If she is as fond of you as she claims to be then she will understand.

[ 21 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]

[ 21 July 2006: Message edited by: Farces ]


From: 43°41' N79°38' W | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 July 2006 07:11 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Farces, give me a break. You're just making things worse and putting me in a crappy position on top of it all. No, Stargazer's not going to be tossed. But you seriously need to stay out of the feminism forum altogether now. You're just stirring the pot at this point and it's completely unnecessary, especially since I was already dealing with what you're complaining about by asking people to stop addressing you. They were discussing whether my request was fair or not. It makes it a lot harder for me to ask people to do that when you come into the feminism forum and call women "shrill and abusive" when they react to things that have upset them, and demand that feminists be banned from posting here.

I'm getting really annoyed at the way people on both sides are undermining moderating efforts in this thread and in this forum. Every time I try to settle a fight, people on both sides keep coming back in and keep it going. I really don't know how to deal with it if you folks can't be adult enough to stop sniping at each other once the moderator has stepped in and said stop.

I'm just going to close this thread now. Farces, please just stay out of the feminism forum from now on. Everyone else, any more talking about Farces, or anyone else who has been asked to stop posting in any thread or forum, will be considered to be baiting from here on out. If you really want someone to stop bothering you, then maybe stop addressing them and talking about them where you know they're going to read it and want to respond.

[ 21 July 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca