It's interesting that a thread about the widespread sexual assaults committed by Weinstein has spent a lot of time discussing how bad it is for men getting falsely accused and not the terrible things he's done.
A lot of women don't come forward for this exact reason, because the narrative so often gets made about men being hard done by because of false allegations.
Riverdale star Lili Reinhart, known for her vocal stance on mental health issues, came forward this week to talk about her experiences with inappropriate sexual behavior and harassment in the film and television industry.
Reinhart is the latest woman to come forward with her experiences after the fall of disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein has opened the floodgates, with performers feeling more comfortable than ever about discussing their grievances.
"In light of the Harvey Weinstein allegations...I feel the need to share a story of my own personal experience where a man in a position of power over me, used that said power to try and take advantage of me," Reinhart wrote on Tumblr.
Reinhart, who plays Betty Cooper on The CW's hit series, did not name the man with whom she had an experience that she described as “a scene out of a horror movie.”
She said that a much older co-worker once “tried to force himself on me when we were on a date,” and that he would not stop making advances on her until she “physically walked away from the situation before it could get any worse.”
She said that because he had taken her on the date in his own car, she had to drive home with him and convince him not to bring her to his own apartment, adding that the next day, he blamed her for the situation, saying that she led him on.
Reinhart said taht she understood why victims might keep quiet, even for years, when the accuser is someone powerful.
“I was miserable," she wrote. "And I felt that I needed to keep my mouth shut about the entire situation because 1. I figured no one would believe me and 2. he played a much bigger role in this project than me … he had more power.”
She added that she did not want to be perceived as "dramatic" and "a diva" by reporting the experience at the time.
Like many others who have come forward this week, Reinhart said that she stood with the Weinstein accusers and that she hoped that telling her own story would give other victims strength and normalize the discussion of these kinds of harassment.
If you say the sex was at a party with someone the victim knew before hand, that is a likely scenario for both sex and rape so I can't decide without more information.
When I was in college many moons ago, I spent one night in a dorm room with six other young women. One of whom was rocking back and forth and weeping as the rest of us tried to comfort her after her rape. At a party. By a guy we all knew before hand (and had thought to be a pretty alright person). We all believed her without question.
But when the topic of going to the police came up, it was rejected, because every single woman in that room knew that doing so would be completely pointless, because of attitudes like yours. We knew there would be no justice. We knew any attempts to get justice would only make the life of our friend worse as SHE was put on trial.
You can't decide without more information? If a woman says she was raped, how about you take her fucking word as your "more information".
Because it would be literally the only crime in the world that requires only an accusation before we administer punishment.
Huh? That's true for most crimes in general where the defendant can claim that the accuser was literally asking for it.
"The shop owner was a big fan of my graffiti and wanted me to spray paint his window!"
In that case, the only "evidence" we have that the defense is bunk is the word of the shop owner.
So why do you believe the shop owner and not the rape victim? You're basically relying on the circular reasoning where you've chosen to accept the shop owner's claim because he's believable, and you deem him as more believable simply because you've chosen to accept him.
You're also conflating "having consensual sex" with "having consensual sex followed by false accusations of rape" as if these are the same thing. They aren't.
Scenario 1: Suppose you track one randomly selected item at Walmart. If you know that item has left the store, then is it more likely to have left with the consent of the store (i.e., via purchase), or without the consent of the store (i.e., theft)?
Scenario 2: Suppose you track one random shoplifting report at Walmart. If you know the report describes an item that has left the shelf, then is the more likely to have left with the consent of the store (i.e., via purchase), or without the consent of the store (i.e., theft)?
Items leaving the shelves at Walmart with the full consent of the owners is perfectly normal. What isn't normal is for Walmart to lie and claim that people shoplifted an item that wasn't actually stolen afterwards. In fact, it's far more likely that items get stolen without getting reported to the police at all, because Walmart has already accounted for loss through theft and they know that the police won't do anything about it.
The problem is, you're trying to frame the discussion in terms of scenario #1, when you should be framing it in terms of scenario #2. You want to discuss in terms of the general probability of whether or not sex in general is likely to be rape. Except once the accusation has occurred, we're no longer dealing with the general probability. We're dealing with a smaller subset.
Are you saying that if someone tomorrow accused your best friend of touching them inappropriately you would need nothing else to decide to never talk to them again, and tell everyone you knew that your friend was an abuser?
You could say the same thing about people falsely accused of shoplifting. Does that mean that shoplifting shouldn't be a crime?
Recently, the popular gaming forum site NeoGAF imploded in on itself when the owner Tyler Malka "Evilore" was once again accused of sexual assault; and this time moderators are fleeing the site. The resulting allegations and flood of traffic even caused the site to be temporarily shut down for a time.
Tyler Malka has been accused several times in the past of sexual misconduct, even himself allegedly boasting about grabbing women without their consent. It seems like the latest allegation was enough to make Malka take matters in his own hands, shutting up all conversation about the scandal on the forums, and his fellow moderators are not having it.
The most recent meltdown, and the reason for Malka deleting massive amounts of threads on the site, and the temporary shut down, revolve around a recent Facebook post calling him out for a specific instance of sexual assault.
***
Just like with everything on the internet, a little digging is necessary to see the authenticity of certain claims; especially those in dealing with dire topics such as sexual assault. When the topic of NeoGAF and how they handle situations like this came up, one user took to a forum to explain that the post above is in fact real, and this is why we should care:
“Guess I should chime in since I'm being named.
In a private group convo, one of my fellow participants brought up the fact that EL got #MeToo'd on FB. I saw someone on my feed telling a story an hour prior that could've fit but I didn't read it too closely, was skeptical and posted a shot in our convo.. I was then directed toward the comments and lo and behold, there was the name. Was a holy shit moment for me, and something of a letdown too, having met both the accuser and the accused IRL. Posted that shot in our convo as well. Came to the realization that this should only really go public if the accuser wants it to because it's her story to tell, and the rest of the participants in the convo reached the same consensus, or so it seemed. I deleted the shots from our group chat. Turned out one of the people in there saved the shots, and gave them to another person who then posted it on Voat, and did a godawful job at concealing the identity of the accuser and myself before doing so. She doesn't deserve to get doxxed and harassed by the internet mob if she's not ready for it, and it's solely for that reason that I didn't want this getting out there, which is why I regret sharing that shot in that group convo.
But yes, it's real.”
Immediately after the above statement took place, that user was banned. A lot of speculation ensued afterwards when the original Facebook post was taken down, prompting many to wonder if it was real, which led to the above statement validating potential authenticity. More and more moderators for the popular site seem to be "jumping ship" including Besada, Xander Cage, Cyan, and Kabouter.
The site promptly went into lockdown mode and the moderators started stepping forward:
Malka continues to police the site, shutting it down, and monitoring social media statements bringing up the latest allegation. Many continue to bring up his past association with a previous moderator that was later arrested for child pornography. Malka distanced himself from the offender, though donations to him from Malka himself continued to come to light. Whenever anyone brought it up, from either side, the users were allegedly banned immediately.
At this time, the story is still developing.
NeoGAF had issues in the recent past with one of its high-level mods caught with child pornography. I'm sure that didn't help with this incident, especially since Evilore and the mods tried to shut down any discussion of it on the site; it seemed to give the impression that some of them might have known more than they let on (whether that was the case or not is still unknown).
You can only say that this would be a good standard of proof because you know society is a thousand miles from actually doing that. Thats just not how evidence works.
Just out of curiosity, where would you like to set the burden of proof at short of a full confession from the defendant or a video of victim shouting "no"?
It's interesting that a thread about the widespread sexual assaults committed by Weinstein has spent a lot of time discussing how bad it is for men getting falsely accused and not the terrible things he's done.
A lot of women don't come forward for this exact reason, because the narrative so often gets made about men being hard done by because of false allegations.
I have to really wonder if it's because a large portion of men sympathise with the accused.
That a large number have engaged in risky behaviour whilst drunk, and that might have led to a rape charge had the night been slightly different.
That boys will be boys because I was a boy once.
It's the only thing that I can think of that would cause the concern around false accusations.
Because otherwise why would you be afraid of being falsely accused?
You don't get involved in those situations and so there is nothing for the false accuser to hang a charge on.
It would be an inconvenience, and a very unlikely one at that.
Or maybe the idea of your entire life getting ruined over a false accusation is a terrifying idea, and after seeing it happen to others men want no part of it?
Yeah, I’ll fight that. It’s not right, not morally and certainly not legally. It’s absolutely stunning that you could somehow cede the moral high ground while fighting against sexual assault but here we are.
You mean like the terrifying false accusation that you're just a slut who lied about your rape, in addition to the terror of the rape itself?
Why is the prospect of that type of false accusation acceptable to you, but the other kind isn't? Especially when the former is statistically far more likely to happen by many orders of magnitude?
Some of us have hangups about being falsely accused because we were falsely accused of something once. I draw upon the experience of being falsely accused by my classmates of starting fights and using racial slurs. It's the only time I've made a false apology. Kids will do that to each other because they can be quite horrible; adults are supposed to grow out of that.
The world is different when you become an adult, but people are still influenced by what happened to them as kids. These experiences are one reason why I don't tend to acquire more than superficial attachments to my peers.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Some of us have hangups about being falsely accused because we were falsely accused of something once. I draw upon the experience of being falsely accused by my classmates of starting fights and using racial slurs. It's the only time I've made a false apology. Kids will do that to each other because they can be quite horrible; adults are supposed to grow out of that.
The world is different when you become an adult, but people are still influenced by what happened to them as kids. These experiences are one reason why I don't tend to acquire more than superficial attachments to my peers.
Yes, and?
I find it very difficult to summon any sympathy to your hangups, when it is used to further victimize women (and men) who have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted and/or abused.
Nobody is calling for immediate castration of any man who is accused of unvelcome advances.
Some of us have hangups about being falsely accused because we were falsely accused of something once. I draw upon the experience of being falsely accused by my classmates of starting fights and using racial slurs. It's the only time I've made a false apology. Kids will do that to each other because they can be quite horrible; adults are supposed to grow out of that.
The world is different when you become an adult, but people are still influenced by what happened to them as kids. These experiences are one reason why I don't tend to acquire more than superficial attachments to my peers.
Yes, and?
I find it very difficult to summon any sympathy to your hangups, when it is used to further victimize women (and men) who have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted and/or abused.
Nobody is calling for immediate castration of any man who is accused of unvelcome advances.
I think he was responding to the poster who implied that the only reason anyone would have any concern about false accusations is because they themselves were rapists or near-rapists.
False accusations are rare and a hazard with any crime. The risk of a false accusation isn't worth suppressing reports of sexual assault. Thorough investigations should occur every time.
The objection is to the intimation that criminal proceedings be viewed through a guilty until proven innocent lens.
Upholding the belief that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" does NOT mean that reports of sexual assault shouldn't be taken seriously. It also does not mean that people coming forward should not be supported and believed.
Some of us have hangups about being falsely accused because we were falsely accused of something once. I draw upon the experience of being falsely accused by my classmates of starting fights and using racial slurs. It's the only time I've made a false apology. Kids will do that to each other because they can be quite horrible; adults are supposed to grow out of that.
The world is different when you become an adult, but people are still influenced by what happened to them as kids. These experiences are one reason why I don't tend to acquire more than superficial attachments to my peers.
Yes, and?
I find it very difficult to summon any sympathy to your hangups, when it is used to further victimize women (and men) who have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted and/or abused.
Nobody is calling for immediate castration of any man who is accused of unvelcome advances.
I think he was responding to the poster who implied that the only reason anyone would have any concern about false accusations is because they themselves were rapists or near-rapists.
That's pretty much it. We keep bringing up wonderment why people are so ginger and hyperfocused on false accusation, and I have put out theories applicable to individuals who are not, at heart, evil.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think he was responding to the poster who implied that the only reason anyone would have any concern about false accusations is because they themselves were rapists or near-rapists.
I think he was responding to the poster who implied that the only reason anyone would have any concern about false accusations is because they themselves were rapists or near-rapists.
It's interesting that a thread about the widespread sexual assaults committed by Weinstein has spent a lot of time discussing how bad it is for men getting falsely accused and not the terrible things he's done.
A lot of women don't come forward for this exact reason, because the narrative so often gets made about men being hard done by because of false allegations.
I have to really wonder if it's because a large portion of men sympathise with the accused. That a large number have engaged in risky behaviour whilst drunk, and that might have led to a rape charge had the night been slightly different.
That boys will be boys because I was a boy once.
It's the only thing that I can think of that would cause the concern around false accusations.
Because otherwise why would you be afraid of being falsely accused?
You don't get involved in those situations and so there is nothing for the false accuser to hang a charge on.
It would be an inconvenience, and a very unlikely one at that.
edit: removed stupid commentary.
This conversation rightly should be about women and why it's a brutal world right now for reporting these crimes.
Yes, and?
I find it very difficult to summon any sympathy to your hangups, when it is used to further victimize women (and men) who have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted and/or abused.
Nobody is calling for immediate castration of any man who is accused of unvelcome advances.
He is explaining why he might not support your position. You have dismissed his concerns.
It probably felt good. But it also pushed away an ally, or a potential ally.
Yes, and?
I find it very difficult to summon any sympathy to your hangups, when it is used to further victimize women (and men) who have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted and/or abused.
Nobody is calling for immediate castration of any man who is accused of unvelcome advances.
He is explaining why he might not support your position. You have dismissed his concerns.
It probably felt good. But it also pushed away an ally, or a potential ally.
Personally, i ascribe to the school of thought that people are capable of examining their actions without being given a verbal blowjob.
And if my post there is what moves Paladin from supporting rape victims, or examining his fear about being falsely accused of rape, then it is unlikely he would ever have done so, and even if he had, he would have changed his mind the second someone said "but what if you get falsely accused".
I get why people might be concerned about hurting the feelings of people over this, but frankly, i'm tired of male fragility, and coddling of men because of it.
Yes, and?
I find it very difficult to summon any sympathy to your hangups, when it is used to further victimize women (and men) who have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted and/or abused.
Nobody is calling for immediate castration of any man who is accused of unvelcome advances.
He is explaining why he might not support your position. You have dismissed his concerns.
It probably felt good. But it also pushed away an ally, or a potential ally.
Personally, i ascribe to the school of thought that people are capable of examining their actions without being given a verbal blowjob.
And if my post there is what moves Paladin from supporting rape victims, or examining his fear about being falsely accused of rape, then it is unlikely he would ever have done so, and even if he had, he would have changed his mind the second someone said "but what if you get falsely accused".
I get why people might be concerned about hurting the feelings of people over this, but frankly, i'm tired of male fragility, and coddling of men because of it.
It doesn't do any of that shit. It does make people disengage with the discussion though. I guess some of us can't be quite righteous enough.
MADISON, Wis. — Thousands of children provided evidence of possible sexual assaults to Wisconsin police agencies and hospitals that was never sent to state crime labs for testing, according to newly released records.
State Department of Justice officials, who have been researching untested rape kits for nearly two years as part of a grant-funded effort, released the records last month in response to requests by USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin.
Here are five key takeaways from the new information.
1. About one-third of Wisconsin's untested rape kits involve possible child victims.
State authorities first estimated in 2014 that roughly 6,000 rape kits were sitting in local police and medical facilities. The evidence — clothing, DNA samples and other material collected after sexual assault allegations — was never sent to state labs for testing.
To date, most information released about the kits has been geographic or anecdotal in nature. State and local authorities have listed the number of kits kept at local facilities and outlined possible reasons that kits weren't tested.
Now, we have a glimpse of who may have been victimized, based on details from the untested kits. At least one in every three kits came from children, and at least one in every seven kits came from children under the age of 10.
Exactly how many kits came from possible child victims is unclear because in hundreds of cases, state and local authorities have yet to track down information needed to calculate a person’s age. As of August, the tally of kits involving child sexual assault allegations was at least 2,441.
Young adults represent the next largest age group, as more than 2,100 kits came from people age 18 to 29.
2. Most child kits scheduled for testing.
Of the more than 2,000 kits from possible child victims, state authorities have scheduled about 62 percent for testing this year or next year at private labs. Law enforcement authorities hope the effort, funded by grants, will help identify and prosecute serial rapists.
Most child kits not scheduled for testing involve cases in which a person has already been convicted. The remainder aren’t scheduled for testing due to a variety of reasons, including a lack of victim consent and indications that no crime happened.
Of the 3,300 untested kits involving adults, nearly 70 percent are scheduled for testing this year or next year. The most common reasons cited for not testing adult kits are similar to child kits. Authorities have already obtained convictions related to incidents or victims have not consented to having their kits tested.
Attorney General Brad Schimel, who oversees the Department of Justice, has previously said he believes kits could be legally tested without victim consent — but that would violate privacy rights.
3. Law enforcement decided not to test most kits
Pressed to explain the origins of Wisconsin’s rape kits backlog in recent years, law enforcement authorities have often highlighted legal or bureaucratic reasons, saying evidence was kept in case of court appeals or if victims wished to press charges.
But state records paint a more troubling picture of how law enforcement authorities responded to thousands of reported sexual assaults stretching back decades. Many kits were never sent to labs because police declined to pursue investigations or because prosecutors declined to pursue charges.
Those two scenarios explain nearly 42 percent of Wisconsin’s rape kits backlog, including more than 1,000 kits involving possible child victims and more than 900 kits involving possible crimes against young adults.
Another 27 percent of the backlogged kits were never submitted to state labs because authorities believed a person’s sexual assault allegations were unfounded or because they believed testing kits wouldn’t impact the results of a case.
4. State redactions conceal who made decisions
It is impossible to identify which police agencies declined to pursue investigations and which prosecutors declined to pursue charges related to the kits. Department of Justice officials redacted that information from copies of government records sought by USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin under state transparency laws.
Department of Justice officials cited concerns that releasing the information might jeopardize criminal investigations. They have also previously refused to identify which police agencies were slow to produce information about untested rape kits, saying they didn't want to "shame or embarrass anyone or call anyone out."
5. Possible victims had limited impact on backlog
Some individuals who supplied rape kits to police or medical facilities have contributed to the backlog, but to a smaller degree than law enforcement authorities.
In about 15 percent of cases, a crime was never reported to police so the accompanying evidence wasn’t submitted to labs. In another 12 percent of cases, a crime was reported to police but then the individual either withdrew charges or was deemed by authorities to be uncooperative.
While seeking federal grants last year, state authorities researching the kits said they were troubled by how often local law enforcement agencies had labeled sexual assault victims as uncooperative. They said officers who hadn't received special training "may misinterpret symptoms of trauma as indicators of untruthfulness” and wrongly deem someone uncooperative.
Many of the untested kits attributed to an individual's actions are now scheduled for testing in private labs, including more than 500 where a person either withdrew charges or was labeled uncooperative.
Note to readers: If you have additional information about this story or suggestions for a related story, please contact investigative reporter Keegan Kyle at kkyle@gannett.com.
MADISON, Wis. — Thousands of children provided evidence of possible sexual assaults to Wisconsin police agencies and hospitals that was never sent to state crime labs for testing, according to newly released records.
State Department of Justice officials, who have been researching untested rape kits for nearly two years as part of a grant-funded effort, released the records last month in response to requests by USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin.
Here are five key takeaways from the new information.
1. About one-third of Wisconsin's untested rape kits involve possible child victims.
State authorities first estimated in 2014 that roughly 6,000 rape kits were sitting in local police and medical facilities. The evidence — clothing, DNA samples and other material collected after sexual assault allegations — was never sent to state labs for testing.
To date, most information released about the kits has been geographic or anecdotal in nature. State and local authorities have listed the number of kits kept at local facilities and outlined possible reasons that kits weren't tested.
Now, we have a glimpse of who may have been victimized, based on details from the untested kits. At least one in every three kits came from children, and at least one in every seven kits came from children under the age of 10.
Exactly how many kits came from possible child victims is unclear because in hundreds of cases, state and local authorities have yet to track down information needed to calculate a person’s age. As of August, the tally of kits involving child sexual assault allegations was at least 2,441.
Young adults represent the next largest age group, as more than 2,100 kits came from people age 18 to 29.
2. Most child kits scheduled for testing.
Of the more than 2,000 kits from possible child victims, state authorities have scheduled about 62 percent for testing this year or next year at private labs. Law enforcement authorities hope the effort, funded by grants, will help identify and prosecute serial rapists.
Most child kits not scheduled for testing involve cases in which a person has already been convicted. The remainder aren’t scheduled for testing due to a variety of reasons, including a lack of victim consent and indications that no crime happened.
Of the 3,300 untested kits involving adults, nearly 70 percent are scheduled for testing this year or next year. The most common reasons cited for not testing adult kits are similar to child kits. Authorities have already obtained convictions related to incidents or victims have not consented to having their kits tested.
Attorney General Brad Schimel, who oversees the Department of Justice, has previously said he believes kits could be legally tested without victim consent — but that would violate privacy rights.
3. Law enforcement decided not to test most kits
Pressed to explain the origins of Wisconsin’s rape kits backlog in recent years, law enforcement authorities have often highlighted legal or bureaucratic reasons, saying evidence was kept in case of court appeals or if victims wished to press charges.
But state records paint a more troubling picture of how law enforcement authorities responded to thousands of reported sexual assaults stretching back decades. Many kits were never sent to labs because police declined to pursue investigations or because prosecutors declined to pursue charges.
Those two scenarios explain nearly 42 percent of Wisconsin’s rape kits backlog, including more than 1,000 kits involving possible child victims and more than 900 kits involving possible crimes against young adults.
Another 27 percent of the backlogged kits were never submitted to state labs because authorities believed a person’s sexual assault allegations were unfounded or because they believed testing kits wouldn’t impact the results of a case.
4. State redactions conceal who made decisions
It is impossible to identify which police agencies declined to pursue investigations and which prosecutors declined to pursue charges related to the kits. Department of Justice officials redacted that information from copies of government records sought by USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin under state transparency laws.
Department of Justice officials cited concerns that releasing the information might jeopardize criminal investigations. They have also previously refused to identify which police agencies were slow to produce information about untested rape kits, saying they didn't want to "shame or embarrass anyone or call anyone out."
5. Possible victims had limited impact on backlog
Some individuals who supplied rape kits to police or medical facilities have contributed to the backlog, but to a smaller degree than law enforcement authorities.
In about 15 percent of cases, a crime was never reported to police so the accompanying evidence wasn’t submitted to labs. In another 12 percent of cases, a crime was reported to police but then the individual either withdrew charges or was deemed by authorities to be uncooperative.
While seeking federal grants last year, state authorities researching the kits said they were troubled by how often local law enforcement agencies had labeled sexual assault victims as uncooperative. They said officers who hadn't received special training "may misinterpret symptoms of trauma as indicators of untruthfulness” and wrongly deem someone uncooperative.
Many of the untested kits attributed to an individual's actions are now scheduled for testing in private labs, including more than 500 where a person either withdrew charges or was labeled uncooperative.
Note to readers: If you have additional information about this story or suggestions for a related story, please contact investigative reporter Keegan Kyle at kkyle@gannett.com.
Common ground? This is beyond fucked up.
This is absolutely unacceptable.
I don't get the privacy thing?
No one gets to have privacy if they're shot or murdered? All evidence in a crime, once reported needs to be on record. Gah, this is so fucked up.
Yes, and?
I find it very difficult to summon any sympathy to your hangups, when it is used to further victimize women (and men) who have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted and/or abused.
Nobody is calling for immediate castration of any man who is accused of unvelcome advances.
He is explaining why he might not support your position. You have dismissed his concerns.
It probably felt good. But it also pushed away an ally, or a potential ally.
Personally, i ascribe to the school of thought that people are capable of examining their actions without being given a verbal blowjob.
And if my post there is what moves Paladin from supporting rape victims, or examining his fear about being falsely accused of rape, then it is unlikely he would ever have done so, and even if he had, he would have changed his mind the second someone said "but what if you get falsely accused".
I get why people might be concerned about hurting the feelings of people over this, but frankly, i'm tired of male fragility, and coddling of men because of it.
It doesn't do any of that shit. It does make people disengage with the discussion though. I guess some of us can't be quite righteous enough.
Yes, that's what i'm doing, showing of my righteousness.
And not at all being tired of having someone, usually several someones, going "but what about men", everytime there is a discussion about rape and sexual abuse, and then being told i need to be nice and understanding of their irrational fears that stop them from supporting actions that would help women (and men) with their very real, rational, and all too widespread terrors.
Quantifying sexual assault continues to be a challenge, since the large majority (91%) of these crimes are not reported to police.
Ninety-One Percent! fucking shameful.
Victims of both forms of sexual assault generally had similar reasons for not reporting the incident to the police. The most commonly stated reason why victims of sexual assault did not report the incident to the police was because they felt it was not important enough (58%). Victims also stated that they did not report to police because the incident was dealt with in another way (54%); they felt that it was a personal matter (47%); or they did not want to get involved with the police (41%).
The bolded is a serious problem that I think everyone can agree on. The culture of investigators looking for reasons to disbelieve victims has to be changed.
The problem is that too many police department immediately start with the presumption that the victim is lying, and then investigate as if the victim is the one being charged. They will actively look for reasons not to believe the victim, like the fact that she's too shaky to give a coherent response immediately after calling in the police. Or the fact that she waited several days before calling the police when she was more coherent.
This happens when there isn't even a defendant to begin with, which was what happened in the Lynnwood case that someone mentioned earlier. The police immediately sided against the accuser even when there was no defendant being accused.
Part of the problem is that police immediately jump to assuming that the victim is lying, without first asking themselves why would the victim lie. If it's out of revenge, then that gives the defense something to work with.
Another problem is that the police simply disagree with modern definitions of rape, i.e., the idea that rape occurs if the other party is too drunk to consent.
Yes, and?
I find it very difficult to summon any sympathy to your hangups, when it is used to further victimize women (and men) who have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted and/or abused.
Nobody is calling for immediate castration of any man who is accused of unvelcome advances.
He is explaining why he might not support your position. You have dismissed his concerns.
It probably felt good. But it also pushed away an ally, or a potential ally.
Personally, i ascribe to the school of thought that people are capable of examining their actions without being given a verbal blowjob.
And if my post there is what moves Paladin from supporting rape victims, or examining his fear about being falsely accused of rape, then it is unlikely he would ever have done so, and even if he had, he would have changed his mind the second someone said "but what if you get falsely accused".
I get why people might be concerned about hurting the feelings of people over this, but frankly, i'm tired of male fragility, and coddling of men because of it.
It might be difficult for others to swallow, but it's no big deal for me, and I encourage others who might be coming from the same place not to take what people say in passion or outrage too personally. What's an internet forum without a little spice?
If you want to convince me, specifically, of something, then put forth an idea as devoid of outrage, hatred, and blame as you can make it and hope for the best. I have developed exquisite control over my sense of shame as a result of my experiences, so you should use your energy for more fruitful avenues. Or don't; I'm not an influential person and I just told you I had no friends, so the likelihood anybody would come to me for support after being sexually abused is very low.
Or you could be doing it exactly right, with the results spreading unseen beyond this discussion. What is "it," though? Is it encouraging people to support rape victims? Who is your audience? How do you measure your success? How do you improve your technique; what is your technique? My "it" is helping people understand each other. My audience is people who question why others think a certain way. My technique is using abstractions of personal narratives as logical analogies, and my improvement stems from getting people to talk about their thought processes and remembering that. My success is making people be more convincing to other people. I think it would help for anybody to systematically analyze what they're trying to accomplish at any point where we seem to be talking past each other and running in circles.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The problem is that too many police department immediately start with the presumption that the victim is lying, and then investigate as if the victim is the one being charged. They will actively look for reasons not to believe the victim, like the fact that she's too shaky to give a coherent response immediately after calling in the police. Or the fact that she waited several days before calling the police when she was more coherent.
This happens when there isn't even a defendant to begin with, which was what happened in the Lynnwood case that someone mentioned earlier. The police immediately sided against the accuser even when there was no defendant being accused.
Part of the problem is that police immediately jump to assuming that the victim is lying, without first asking themselves why would the victim lie. If it's out of revenge, then that gives the defense something to work with.
Another problem is that the police simply disagree with modern definitions of rape, i.e., the idea that rape occurs if the other party is too drunk to consent.
I 100% agree with this.
I also am super frustrated that I had 3 posts with potential solutions that were completely ignored in favour of this back and forth (of which I am guilty). Let's set aside what happens in court for a few pages and talk about what can be done to support people and get them reporting these assaults!
So for the 3rd time, can we all agree that for instances of sexual assault a neutral 3rd party victim advocate, NOT employed by the state or police dept., should be present for all interogatory sessions?
All the ink in the world won't change the police culture. We need to force change through laws.
+1
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
“Telling people they’re racist, sexist, and xenophobic is going to get you exactly nowhere,” said Alana Conner, executive director of Stanford University’s Social Psychological Answers to Real-World Questions Center. “It’s such a threatening message. One of the things we know from social psychology is when people feel threatened, they can’t change, they can’t listen.”
The fact of the matter is that yelling at people about how they are morally inferior and how their position is bad and they should feel bad does absolutely nothing to help move things forward. In fact, it makes things worse. The only thing it does is make you feel better.
My main goal is to make sure that women aren't raped, and that if they are, that they feel as though society and the justice system are designed to help them. I really don't give a shit about whether or not I get to feel self-righteous or yell at people about how good of a person I am. I also really don't give a shit about whether or not I have to swallow my ego and show a little patience to get other people on board who are maybe neutral or on the fence about the whole thing. I need them on my side to make progress on these larger, more important goals.
Affirmative Jacobkosh. "false" is forbidden in this thread.
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Let's speak to the actual newsworthy subject of the thread, helpfully provided in the title for easy reference, rather than pursuing chimerical side discussions about hypothetical situations.
“Telling people they’re racist, sexist, and xenophobic is going to get you exactly nowhere,” said Alana Conner, executive director of Stanford University’s Social Psychological Answers to Real-World Questions Center. “It’s such a threatening message. One of the things we know from social psychology is when people feel threatened, they can’t change, they can’t listen.”
The fact of the matter is that yelling at people about how they are morally inferior and how their position is bad and they should feel bad does absolutely nothing to help move things forward. In fact, it makes things worse. The only thing it does is make you feel better.
My main goal is to make sure that women aren't raped, and that if they are, that they feel as though society and the justice system are designed to help them. I really don't give a shit about whether or not I get to feel self-righteous or yell at people about how good of a person I am. I also really don't give a shit about whether or not I have to swallow my ego and show a little patience to get other people on board who are maybe neutral or on the fence about the whole thing. I need them on my side to make progress on these larger, more important goals.
I'm sure this will work on many people, however, they are indistinguishable from acting like people who are using it as an excuse while the real problem is the concepts themselves.
In one of several such settlements reported by the Times, Weinstein made a $100,000 payment to actress Rose McGowan in 1997 to keep her quiet about conduct that she has since described as rape. McGowan, who was 23 years old at the time, appears to have gone two decades without explicitly identifying Weinstein. CNN reported that she retracted an interview with the New Yorker for its competing investigation into Weinstein’s conduct over fear of legal consequences.
At this point, with Weinstein shamed in lengthy exposes and shunned by his industry and peers, it’s unlikely that he will pursue in court any of the women who may have violated NDAs. But there can be little doubt that the agreements have helped keep his conduct from coming into the open, according to multiple employment lawyers.
The only downside of violating an NDA is you have to give back the money, correct?
I wonder if it would be feasible to crowd source that.
In one of several such settlements reported by the Times, Weinstein made a $100,000 payment to actress Rose McGowan in 1997 to keep her quiet about conduct that she has since described as rape. McGowan, who was 23 years old at the time, appears to have gone two decades without explicitly identifying Weinstein. CNN reported that she retracted an interview with the New Yorker for its competing investigation into Weinstein’s conduct over fear of legal consequences.
At this point, with Weinstein shamed in lengthy exposes and shunned by his industry and peers, it’s unlikely that he will pursue in court any of the women who may have violated NDAs. But there can be little doubt that the agreements have helped keep his conduct from coming into the open, according to multiple employment lawyers.
The only downside of violating an NDA is you have to give back the money, correct?
I wonder if it would be feasible to crowd source that.
It would be interesting if she contested it. What's he going to do, take her to court and testify that he sexually assaulted her?
“Telling people they’re racist, sexist, and xenophobic is going to get you exactly nowhere,” said Alana Conner, executive director of Stanford University’s Social Psychological Answers to Real-World Questions Center. “It’s such a threatening message. One of the things we know from social psychology is when people feel threatened, they can’t change, they can’t listen.”
The fact of the matter is that yelling at people about how they are morally inferior and how their position is bad and they should feel bad does absolutely nothing to help move things forward. In fact, it makes things worse. The only thing it does is make you feel better.
My main goal is to make sure that women aren't raped, and that if they are, that they feel as though society and the justice system are designed to help them. I really don't give a shit about whether or not I get to feel self-righteous or yell at people about how good of a person I am. I also really don't give a shit about whether or not I have to swallow my ego and show a little patience to get other people on board who are maybe neutral or on the fence about the whole thing. I need them on my side to make progress on these larger, more important goals.
I'm sure this will work on many people, however, they are indistinguishable from acting like people who are using it as an excuse while the real problem is the concepts themselves.
My position on this is the same as with "be nice to racists" idea.
I don't think there is large enough segment of people who are simply misguided, but will turn around with just a bit of patience and ego massaging, that there's any real point for me to, or others, trying to be nice and understanding towards people who, when faced with the issues women deal with rape and abuse, go "what about men?".
If someone has the patience, and happens to change someones mind, great, nice for them.
But the energy spent is not worth the returns gained.
I also think that most people, when faced with just how pervasive rape and abuse are, will recoil in horror from it without need to ego massage the "what about men" brigade.
We need to shine a spotlight at the problem, offer support for the victims, and educate those ignorant of the issue, and sometimes the best education is having someone point out what a goose you are.
In one of several such settlements reported by the Times, Weinstein made a $100,000 payment to actress Rose McGowan in 1997 to keep her quiet about conduct that she has since described as rape. McGowan, who was 23 years old at the time, appears to have gone two decades without explicitly identifying Weinstein. CNN reported that she retracted an interview with the New Yorker for its competing investigation into Weinstein’s conduct over fear of legal consequences.
At this point, with Weinstein shamed in lengthy exposes and shunned by his industry and peers, it’s unlikely that he will pursue in court any of the women who may have violated NDAs. But there can be little doubt that the agreements have helped keep his conduct from coming into the open, according to multiple employment lawyers.
The only downside of violating an NDA is you have to give back the money, correct?
I wonder if it would be feasible to crowd source that.
It would be interesting if she contested it. What's he going to do, take her to court and testify that he sexually assaulted her?
In Weinstein's case, it's unlikely that he'll contest the NDA.
But I'm talking about other cases, where you don't yet know whether or not you have strength in numbers.
I’m not sure what to do about NDAs that people sign after they’ve faced abuse and made a claim, and reached some sort of settlement. Possibly nothing. But the NDAs that everyone signs when they get hired, and arbitration rules that limit the ability to sue for injury need to severely restricted. They have no value to society, and they should be understood to only cover proprietary company information, not abuses that would be embarrassing or damaging if they were revealed. They were a feature with both Ailes and Weinstein.
+15
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
I am criticizing the underlying assumption of the post that aims that no chnage is possible without maximal comfort afforded to men and their feelings about potential loss of power or sanctuary.
The evidence cited for this claim is incomplete and ahistorical. I am stating that it was not merely kid gloves that let to white people accepting black liberation, and therefore it's analogous relationship to the subject o cultural shifts on sexual assault cannot also rely on such a myopic view.
Making men feel safe from NOT TRUE accusation is not the main issue, and it so far from the core as to absolutely be a distraction. Making men fear true accusation is a necessary condition of cultural change. Many men will balk at that. That's fine. Change happens when a critical mass gets on board, not 100% of men. So the decalarative statements about what will absolutely, guaranteed occur if people who want to change the culture do not cuddle every indignant testicle who fear a loss of power are not convincing.
Your strawmanning is pretty blatant. I made no reference about maximal comfort, or cupping balls, or whatever other sexual metaphor you want to trot out. I also didn't say anything about kid gloves, and certainly didn't say or imply it was the only thing that made change happen.
If the majority of men do feel a loss of power and sanctuary through these changes then they will be stopped, because men are already in power. That is the nature of power. People aren't going to change because you're sad or angry or offended or whatever. If giving them a reason to do so sticks in your craw, then I am sure you can sustain yourself on righteous indignation.
Cooler heads will actually make a difference by being someone people want to work with instead of against.
What strawman? You consistently make an argument that potential male allies should be coddled against their greatest fear. You cite the practical need for men to be safe and comfortable with a crusade against sexual assault in the culture in order to get on board with it. You claim that since no movement can be won without these allies, the best course of action is to tinker lightly at the margins of existing protocol so as not to spook our strongest advocates.
In doing so you over-inflate the magnitude and necessity of this component of the hashtag struggle and make a dire assumption about the motivating factors behind male allyship. This is not a guaranteed relationship (lack of charitable deference to the fears of powerful men will, 100% of the time, lead to those men shutting down change). It also does not imply its opposite, which your argument relies on (the presence of charitable deference to the fears of powerful men will lead to those men promoting and implementing change).
While you gleefully accuse me of lacking good sense and practicality in favor of the heady scent of my own indignant farts, I am telling you that your statements of practical need are impractical. You elide the entire half of the equation that is women and allies who are already on board, or do not need the constant assurance that feminism will take care not to encroach too readily on the present level of comfort that men feel in this cultural and legal landscape. You do not consider how this condescending call to make this consideration top of mind affects the victims and friends of victims who would, rightly, view that fretful suggestion as yet another powerful cultural force that, in the interest of practicality, recommends their continued silence in the face of power.
You and Inquisitor77 seem far more preoccupied with lecturing the rightfully distressed (i.e. me) about their lack of sense. This is deeply ironic. Let me pop this back right here:
If the majority of men do feel a loss of power and sanctuary through these changes then they will be stopped, because men are already in power. That is the nature of power. People aren't going to change because you're sad or angry or offended or whatever. If giving them a reason to do so sticks in your craw, then I am sure you can sustain yourself on righteous indignation.
Yes, thank you, clearly I am too hysterical to notice that men are already in power, and my only power in this fight is to give up my sad and angry and offended or whatever and defer to the wise counsel of men who know through personal experience that when they are reminded of the thing they fear, they get fearful.
What do you plan to do about it, because if you want to effect change, you are going to have to deal with it.
Slavery ended because a bunch of white people thought it should. The civil rights movement was successful (for a given value of success)
because a bunch of white people were on board. Every marginalized group that managed to change their lot does so, in part, by transforming a portion of their oppressors into supporters. Or killing them, but the numbers aren't really there for that.
It may not be a warm, fuzzy feeling, but it's necessary to accomplish your goals.
Your breathless declarative is that the only viable method to achieve the partial liberation of the the marginalized is for the oppressed to cradle the balls if the oppressor. Therefore, one who wants to see change happen should break out the lotion and avoid anything that could be construed as a squeeze.
A) this is an unrealistic and deeply cruel ask to make of those individuals who already shoulder the great burden of the prevailing power structure's lack of caring or interest
your reference to slavery as an analogous civil rights movement by which we can draw the conclusion that the oppressor's heartstrings being carefully plucked is necessary for the achievement of justice is a neat fiction that disregards the historical facts that incentivized those power structures to identify the continuation of their oppressive institutions as a greater threat than an asset, and that includes the agitation and unruliness of the oppressed
This is great "fire up the masses" speech, but has literally no concrete next steps to getting there. Like, it's not even clear what ideal you're arguing in favor of. This entire thing could be about Occupy Wall Street and it would read exactly the same.
It is possible to point out the hypocrisy and cruelty of the existing status of affairs without devolving into tribalism. The only way we are going to win this fight over the long term is by changing minds, and we cannot change minds by yelling at people like an itinerant preacher on the street.
How quixotic.
I am criticizing the underlying assumption of the post that aims that no chnage is possible without maximal comfort afforded to men and their feelings about potential loss of power or sanctuary.
The evidence cited for this claim is incomplete and ahistorical. I am stating that it was not merely kid gloves that let to white people accepting black liberation, and therefore it's analogous relationship to the subject o cultural shifts on sexual assault cannot also rely on such a myopic view.
Making men feel safe from false accusation is not the main issue, and it so far from the core as to absolutely be a distraction. Making men fear true accusation is a necessary condition of cultural change. Many men will balk at that. That's fine. Change happens when a critical mass gets on board, not 100% of men. So the decalarative statements about what will absolutely, guaranteed occur if people who want to change the culture do not cuddle every indignant testicle who fear a loss of power are not convincing.
It's not an either/or proposition. Change requires both pushing and pulling, and not everyone reacts to the same factors in the same way, if at all.
This is the problem with all of the emotional arguments going on in this thread. People get incredibly defensive and riled up when anything other than complete agreement on all points is had, including "well they should just change their minds and do it."
Even if you take it for granted that you aren't going to change the minds of the Harvey Weinstein's of the world, there is a larger question of what you are going to do for the majority of people, from both genders, who hold a worldview which prejudices them towards believing that rape victims are "sluts" rather than that someone could possibly be a rapist in the first place.
The vast, vast majority of these people are not themselves rapists, so screaming at them about the patriarchy or white privilege or rape culture isn't going to get you anything but eye rolls. Being even more confrontational will only cause them to dig in deeper. The psychology on these things is very clear. And yet, we face the problem that these are the people you need to convince in order to get widespread societal change, like it or not.
Most of us agree entirely in principle with the idea that: a) rape is bad, b) our society perpetuates attitudes which cause a gross under-reporting of rape and lack of consequences for rapists. But when some of us dare to raise the question of What Next? we get met with incredulous stares of "enabling the status quo" and being "part of the problem".
I have stopped 2 rapes and 1 assault in my lifetime, two of which put me in significant personal danger. I have opened up my home to victims of assault. When someone uses the word "rape" as a blithe metaphor, I correct them on the spot. When people express attitudes that perpetuate false ideas of what masculinity means, or assume the male gender where none is needed, I point it out. I go to the extent of using female gender pronouns as the default in the majority of my work correspondence, just as a matter of course.
I don't say these things to toot my own horn. I say them to make it clear that we are on the same page here. These things are wrong. We should be stopping them. But there are only a few limited things we can do within our own personal spheres of influence.
So my question, which I have asked repeatedly, and which to my count only two people have even bothered to grapple with, is what else can we do about it? If this thread is just going to be a place where people pat themselves on the back and point out how shitty everyone else is and how toxic and terrible "the other people" are, then I think I'll take my leave. Other people, who I expect are also allies in this fight, have already expressed how hesitant they are to even begin a dialogue here, and I think that speaks to the tone of the thread.
Re: Bolded: Ignoring for a second the amusing characterization of my tone as "screaming", what is wrong with this? Again, you make an unsupported assertion that because confrontation causes people to cling to their beliefs rather than change their minds, we should not do anything that could be construed as confrontation. But confrontation is unavoidable in a society where even mild gestures like "Believe Women" sets off a cascade of hyperventilation about impact for men and a whole new cohort of Constitutional Law Scholars consumed by the doctrinal implications of examining the failures of the justice system to practically grapple with the crimes of sexual assault and rape in a way that delivers justice fairly.
I do not need a demonstration of your bona fides. Your hesitation and the hesitation of men in general can already be assumed. That is the nature of the world we live in. Women are not unaware of the practical value of patting men on the head for doing the bare minimum. I stress this because in your posts and the PM I got lecturing me about my impractical indignation gravely damaging the cause, there seems to be a suggestion that we are simply ignorant of the need to seek the steadfast allyship of men like yourselves.
As to your question One thing you can do about it is not to make a conversation about the habitual absolution of sexual assault and rape by men in this society about what it would mean for men to live in a world where women are believed.
In one of several such settlements reported by the Times, Weinstein made a $100,000 payment to actress Rose McGowan in 1997 to keep her quiet about conduct that she has since described as rape. McGowan, who was 23 years old at the time, appears to have gone two decades without explicitly identifying Weinstein. CNN reported that she retracted an interview with the New Yorker for its competing investigation into Weinstein’s conduct over fear of legal consequences.
At this point, with Weinstein shamed in lengthy exposes and shunned by his industry and peers, it’s unlikely that he will pursue in court any of the women who may have violated NDAs. But there can be little doubt that the agreements have helped keep his conduct from coming into the open, according to multiple employment lawyers.
The only downside of violating an NDA is you have to give back the money, correct?
I wonder if it would be feasible to crowd source that.
It would be interesting if she contested it. What's he going to do, take her to court and testify that he sexually assaulted her?
In Weinstein's case, it's unlikely that he'll contest the NDA.
But I'm talking about other cases, where you don't yet know whether or not you have strength in numbers.
There could be ways for him to make an example of her, though it depends on which bullshit will be useable to get it to the trial stage rather than thrown out. All he needs to do is get to the trail stage and punish her monetarily, this hinges on whether he'd want revenge over his reputation in the media. Which is terrible (an understatement) to begin with.
He'll likely go to another country forever, perhaps with a non-extradition treaty with the US. He's already in Europe as the news broke out.
Posts
A lot of women don't come forward for this exact reason, because the narrative so often gets made about men being hard done by because of false allegations.
http://comicbook.com/tv-shows/2017/10/13/riverdale-star-lili-reinhart-opens-up-about-her-sexual-harassmen/
Huh? That's true for most crimes in general where the defendant can claim that the accuser was literally asking for it.
"The shop owner was a big fan of my graffiti and wanted me to spray paint his window!"
In that case, the only "evidence" we have that the defense is bunk is the word of the shop owner.
So why do you believe the shop owner and not the rape victim? You're basically relying on the circular reasoning where you've chosen to accept the shop owner's claim because he's believable, and you deem him as more believable simply because you've chosen to accept him.
You're also conflating "having consensual sex" with "having consensual sex followed by false accusations of rape" as if these are the same thing. They aren't.
Scenario 1: Suppose you track one randomly selected item at Walmart. If you know that item has left the store, then is it more likely to have left with the consent of the store (i.e., via purchase), or without the consent of the store (i.e., theft)?
Scenario 2: Suppose you track one random shoplifting report at Walmart. If you know the report describes an item that has left the shelf, then is the more likely to have left with the consent of the store (i.e., via purchase), or without the consent of the store (i.e., theft)?
Items leaving the shelves at Walmart with the full consent of the owners is perfectly normal. What isn't normal is for Walmart to lie and claim that people shoplifted an item that wasn't actually stolen afterwards. In fact, it's far more likely that items get stolen without getting reported to the police at all, because Walmart has already accounted for loss through theft and they know that the police won't do anything about it.
The problem is, you're trying to frame the discussion in terms of scenario #1, when you should be framing it in terms of scenario #2. You want to discuss in terms of the general probability of whether or not sex in general is likely to be rape. Except once the accusation has occurred, we're no longer dealing with the general probability. We're dealing with a smaller subset.
You could say the same thing about people falsely accused of shoplifting. Does that mean that shoplifting shouldn't be a crime?
NeoGAF had issues in the recent past with one of its high-level mods caught with child pornography. I'm sure that didn't help with this incident, especially since Evilore and the mods tried to shut down any discussion of it on the site; it seemed to give the impression that some of them might have known more than they let on (whether that was the case or not is still unknown).
Just out of curiosity, where would you like to set the burden of proof at short of a full confession from the defendant or a video of victim shouting "no"?
I have to really wonder if it's because a large portion of men sympathise with the accused.
That a large number have engaged in risky behaviour whilst drunk, and that might have led to a rape charge had the night been slightly different.
That boys will be boys because I was a boy once.
It's the only thing that I can think of that would cause the concern around false accusations.
Because otherwise why would you be afraid of being falsely accused?
You don't get involved in those situations and so there is nothing for the false accuser to hang a charge on.
It would be an inconvenience, and a very unlikely one at that.
You mean like the terrifying false accusation that you're just a slut who lied about your rape, in addition to the terror of the rape itself?
Why is the prospect of that type of false accusation acceptable to you, but the other kind isn't? Especially when the former is statistically far more likely to happen by many orders of magnitude?
The world is different when you become an adult, but people are still influenced by what happened to them as kids. These experiences are one reason why I don't tend to acquire more than superficial attachments to my peers.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I find it very difficult to summon any sympathy to your hangups, when it is used to further victimize women (and men) who have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted and/or abused.
Nobody is calling for immediate castration of any man who is accused of unvelcome advances.
I think he was responding to the poster who implied that the only reason anyone would have any concern about false accusations is because they themselves were rapists or near-rapists.
The objection is to the intimation that criminal proceedings be viewed through a guilty until proven innocent lens.
Upholding the belief that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" does NOT mean that reports of sexual assault shouldn't be taken seriously. It also does not mean that people coming forward should not be supported and believed.
That's pretty much it. We keep bringing up wonderment why people are so ginger and hyperfocused on false accusation, and I have put out theories applicable to individuals who are not, at heart, evil.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Who implied that?
edit: removed stupid commentary.
This conversation rightly should be about women and why it's a brutal world right now for reporting these crimes.
He is explaining why he might not support your position. You have dismissed his concerns.
It probably felt good. But it also pushed away an ally, or a potential ally.
And if my post there is what moves Paladin from supporting rape victims, or examining his fear about being falsely accused of rape, then it is unlikely he would ever have done so, and even if he had, he would have changed his mind the second someone said "but what if you get falsely accused".
I get why people might be concerned about hurting the feelings of people over this, but frankly, i'm tired of male fragility, and coddling of men because of it.
It doesn't do any of that shit. It does make people disengage with the discussion though. I guess some of us can't be quite righteous enough.
State Department of Justice officials, who have been researching untested rape kits for nearly two years as part of a grant-funded effort, released the records last month in response to requests by USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin.
Here are five key takeaways from the new information.
1. About one-third of Wisconsin's untested rape kits involve possible child victims.
State authorities first estimated in 2014 that roughly 6,000 rape kits were sitting in local police and medical facilities. The evidence — clothing, DNA samples and other material collected after sexual assault allegations — was never sent to state labs for testing.
To date, most information released about the kits has been geographic or anecdotal in nature. State and local authorities have listed the number of kits kept at local facilities and outlined possible reasons that kits weren't tested.
Now, we have a glimpse of who may have been victimized, based on details from the untested kits. At least one in every three kits came from children, and at least one in every seven kits came from children under the age of 10.
Exactly how many kits came from possible child victims is unclear because in hundreds of cases, state and local authorities have yet to track down information needed to calculate a person’s age. As of August, the tally of kits involving child sexual assault allegations was at least 2,441.
Young adults represent the next largest age group, as more than 2,100 kits came from people age 18 to 29.
2. Most child kits scheduled for testing.
Of the more than 2,000 kits from possible child victims, state authorities have scheduled about 62 percent for testing this year or next year at private labs. Law enforcement authorities hope the effort, funded by grants, will help identify and prosecute serial rapists.
Most child kits not scheduled for testing involve cases in which a person has already been convicted. The remainder aren’t scheduled for testing due to a variety of reasons, including a lack of victim consent and indications that no crime happened.
Of the 3,300 untested kits involving adults, nearly 70 percent are scheduled for testing this year or next year. The most common reasons cited for not testing adult kits are similar to child kits. Authorities have already obtained convictions related to incidents or victims have not consented to having their kits tested.
Attorney General Brad Schimel, who oversees the Department of Justice, has previously said he believes kits could be legally tested without victim consent — but that would violate privacy rights.
3. Law enforcement decided not to test most kits
Pressed to explain the origins of Wisconsin’s rape kits backlog in recent years, law enforcement authorities have often highlighted legal or bureaucratic reasons, saying evidence was kept in case of court appeals or if victims wished to press charges.
But state records paint a more troubling picture of how law enforcement authorities responded to thousands of reported sexual assaults stretching back decades. Many kits were never sent to labs because police declined to pursue investigations or because prosecutors declined to pursue charges.
Those two scenarios explain nearly 42 percent of Wisconsin’s rape kits backlog, including more than 1,000 kits involving possible child victims and more than 900 kits involving possible crimes against young adults.
Another 27 percent of the backlogged kits were never submitted to state labs because authorities believed a person’s sexual assault allegations were unfounded or because they believed testing kits wouldn’t impact the results of a case.
4. State redactions conceal who made decisions
It is impossible to identify which police agencies declined to pursue investigations and which prosecutors declined to pursue charges related to the kits. Department of Justice officials redacted that information from copies of government records sought by USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin under state transparency laws.
Department of Justice officials cited concerns that releasing the information might jeopardize criminal investigations. They have also previously refused to identify which police agencies were slow to produce information about untested rape kits, saying they didn't want to "shame or embarrass anyone or call anyone out."
5. Possible victims had limited impact on backlog
Some individuals who supplied rape kits to police or medical facilities have contributed to the backlog, but to a smaller degree than law enforcement authorities.
In about 15 percent of cases, a crime was never reported to police so the accompanying evidence wasn’t submitted to labs. In another 12 percent of cases, a crime was reported to police but then the individual either withdrew charges or was deemed by authorities to be uncooperative.
While seeking federal grants last year, state authorities researching the kits said they were troubled by how often local law enforcement agencies had labeled sexual assault victims as uncooperative. They said officers who hadn't received special training "may misinterpret symptoms of trauma as indicators of untruthfulness” and wrongly deem someone uncooperative.
Many of the untested kits attributed to an individual's actions are now scheduled for testing in private labs, including more than 500 where a person either withdrew charges or was labeled uncooperative.
Note to readers: If you have additional information about this story or suggestions for a related story, please contact investigative reporter Keegan Kyle at kkyle@gannett.com.
Common ground? This is beyond fucked up.
This is absolutely unacceptable.
I don't get the privacy thing?
No one gets to have privacy if they're shot or murdered? All evidence in a crime, once reported needs to be on record. Gah, this is so fucked up.
And not at all being tired of having someone, usually several someones, going "but what about men", everytime there is a discussion about rape and sexual abuse, and then being told i need to be nice and understanding of their irrational fears that stop them from supporting actions that would help women (and men) with their very real, rational, and all too widespread terrors.
https://news.vice.com/article/canada-has-a-rape-kit-problem
Quantifying sexual assault continues to be a challenge, since the large majority (91%) of these crimes are not reported to police.
Ninety-One Percent! fucking shameful.
Victims of both forms of sexual assault generally had similar reasons for not reporting the incident to the police. The most commonly stated reason why victims of sexual assault did not report the incident to the police was because they felt it was not important enough (58%). Victims also stated that they did not report to police because the incident was dealt with in another way (54%); they felt that it was a personal matter (47%); or they did not want to get involved with the police (41%).
The bolded is a serious problem that I think everyone can agree on. The culture of investigators looking for reasons to disbelieve victims has to be changed.
The problem is that too many police department immediately start with the presumption that the victim is lying, and then investigate as if the victim is the one being charged. They will actively look for reasons not to believe the victim, like the fact that she's too shaky to give a coherent response immediately after calling in the police. Or the fact that she waited several days before calling the police when she was more coherent.
This happens when there isn't even a defendant to begin with, which was what happened in the Lynnwood case that someone mentioned earlier. The police immediately sided against the accuser even when there was no defendant being accused.
Part of the problem is that police immediately jump to assuming that the victim is lying, without first asking themselves why would the victim lie. If it's out of revenge, then that gives the defense something to work with.
Another problem is that the police simply disagree with modern definitions of rape, i.e., the idea that rape occurs if the other party is too drunk to consent.
It might be difficult for others to swallow, but it's no big deal for me, and I encourage others who might be coming from the same place not to take what people say in passion or outrage too personally. What's an internet forum without a little spice?
If you want to convince me, specifically, of something, then put forth an idea as devoid of outrage, hatred, and blame as you can make it and hope for the best. I have developed exquisite control over my sense of shame as a result of my experiences, so you should use your energy for more fruitful avenues. Or don't; I'm not an influential person and I just told you I had no friends, so the likelihood anybody would come to me for support after being sexually abused is very low.
Or you could be doing it exactly right, with the results spreading unseen beyond this discussion. What is "it," though? Is it encouraging people to support rape victims? Who is your audience? How do you measure your success? How do you improve your technique; what is your technique? My "it" is helping people understand each other. My audience is people who question why others think a certain way. My technique is using abstractions of personal narratives as logical analogies, and my improvement stems from getting people to talk about their thought processes and remembering that. My success is making people be more convincing to other people. I think it would help for anybody to systematically analyze what they're trying to accomplish at any point where we seem to be talking past each other and running in circles.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I 100% agree with this.
I also am super frustrated that I had 3 posts with potential solutions that were completely ignored in favour of this back and forth (of which I am guilty). Let's set aside what happens in court for a few pages and talk about what can be done to support people and get them reporting these assaults!
So for the 3rd time, can we all agree that for instances of sexual assault a neutral 3rd party victim advocate, NOT employed by the state or police dept., should be present for all interogatory sessions?
All the ink in the world won't change the police culture. We need to force change through laws.
The fact of the matter is that yelling at people about how they are morally inferior and how their position is bad and they should feel bad does absolutely nothing to help move things forward. In fact, it makes things worse. The only thing it does is make you feel better.
My main goal is to make sure that women aren't raped, and that if they are, that they feel as though society and the justice system are designed to help them. I really don't give a shit about whether or not I get to feel self-righteous or yell at people about how good of a person I am. I also really don't give a shit about whether or not I have to swallow my ego and show a little patience to get other people on board who are maybe neutral or on the fence about the whole thing. I need them on my side to make progress on these larger, more important goals.
I'm sure this will work on many people, however, they are indistinguishable from acting like people who are using it as an excuse while the real problem is the concepts themselves.
The only downside of violating an NDA is you have to give back the money, correct?
I wonder if it would be feasible to crowd source that.
It would be interesting if she contested it. What's he going to do, take her to court and testify that he sexually assaulted her?
I don't think there is large enough segment of people who are simply misguided, but will turn around with just a bit of patience and ego massaging, that there's any real point for me to, or others, trying to be nice and understanding towards people who, when faced with the issues women deal with rape and abuse, go "what about men?".
If someone has the patience, and happens to change someones mind, great, nice for them.
But the energy spent is not worth the returns gained.
I also think that most people, when faced with just how pervasive rape and abuse are, will recoil in horror from it without need to ego massage the "what about men" brigade.
We need to shine a spotlight at the problem, offer support for the victims, and educate those ignorant of the issue, and sometimes the best education is having someone point out what a goose you are.
In Weinstein's case, it's unlikely that he'll contest the NDA.
But I'm talking about other cases, where you don't yet know whether or not you have strength in numbers.
What strawman? You consistently make an argument that potential male allies should be coddled against their greatest fear. You cite the practical need for men to be safe and comfortable with a crusade against sexual assault in the culture in order to get on board with it. You claim that since no movement can be won without these allies, the best course of action is to tinker lightly at the margins of existing protocol so as not to spook our strongest advocates.
In doing so you over-inflate the magnitude and necessity of this component of the hashtag struggle and make a dire assumption about the motivating factors behind male allyship. This is not a guaranteed relationship (lack of charitable deference to the fears of powerful men will, 100% of the time, lead to those men shutting down change). It also does not imply its opposite, which your argument relies on (the presence of charitable deference to the fears of powerful men will lead to those men promoting and implementing change).
While you gleefully accuse me of lacking good sense and practicality in favor of the heady scent of my own indignant farts, I am telling you that your statements of practical need are impractical. You elide the entire half of the equation that is women and allies who are already on board, or do not need the constant assurance that feminism will take care not to encroach too readily on the present level of comfort that men feel in this cultural and legal landscape. You do not consider how this condescending call to make this consideration top of mind affects the victims and friends of victims who would, rightly, view that fretful suggestion as yet another powerful cultural force that, in the interest of practicality, recommends their continued silence in the face of power.
You and Inquisitor77 seem far more preoccupied with lecturing the rightfully distressed (i.e. me) about their lack of sense. This is deeply ironic. Let me pop this back right here:
Yes, thank you, clearly I am too hysterical to notice that men are already in power, and my only power in this fight is to give up my sad and angry and offended or whatever and defer to the wise counsel of men who know through personal experience that when they are reminded of the thing they fear, they get fearful.
Re: Bolded: Ignoring for a second the amusing characterization of my tone as "screaming", what is wrong with this? Again, you make an unsupported assertion that because confrontation causes people to cling to their beliefs rather than change their minds, we should not do anything that could be construed as confrontation. But confrontation is unavoidable in a society where even mild gestures like "Believe Women" sets off a cascade of hyperventilation about impact for men and a whole new cohort of Constitutional Law Scholars consumed by the doctrinal implications of examining the failures of the justice system to practically grapple with the crimes of sexual assault and rape in a way that delivers justice fairly.
I do not need a demonstration of your bona fides. Your hesitation and the hesitation of men in general can already be assumed. That is the nature of the world we live in. Women are not unaware of the practical value of patting men on the head for doing the bare minimum. I stress this because in your posts and the PM I got lecturing me about my impractical indignation gravely damaging the cause, there seems to be a suggestion that we are simply ignorant of the need to seek the steadfast allyship of men like yourselves.
As to your question One thing you can do about it is not to make a conversation about the habitual absolution of sexual assault and rape by men in this society about what it would mean for men to live in a world where women are believed.
NNID: Hakkekage
Warned @Hakkekage (0 points for 1 week) for "Disallowed phrase: Prohibited phrase "false""
NNID: Hakkekage
There could be ways for him to make an example of her, though it depends on which bullshit will be useable to get it to the trial stage rather than thrown out. All he needs to do is get to the trail stage and punish her monetarily, this hinges on whether he'd want revenge over his reputation in the media. Which is terrible (an understatement) to begin with.
He'll likely go to another country forever, perhaps with a non-extradition treaty with the US. He's already in Europe as the news broke out.