@hawkeye10,
Quote:Losing the argument Firefly paints us yet another rape picture, as if we dont already know what rape is all about.
"Losing the argument"??? Hawkeye, she lost it
many pages back.
Multiple people including yourself have pointed out her logical fallacies, and utter horseshit arguments.
But see, that's the thing. Feminists want to "educate" people on what rape is above anything else in life. As if men are born into a world that ******* condones and encourages rape! Because don't you understand that whenever a son is born, as soon as he can speak, his dad sits him down and encourages him to go out and "Rape those bitches good!"
"Don't tell me to be more responsible for my own actions; TEACH MEN NOT TO RAPE!"
But this is an example of what I was saying Hawkeye; firefly is
obsessed with rape. She couldn't go a day without posting on a rape related thread on A2K. And if for some reason rape ceased to exist as a social problem/crime; firefly would have no purpose in life. She would likely become very depressed and at least contemplate, if not commit suicide. And that's because chastising so called "rape apologists" is the
only thing that gives her life meaning.
What I find particularly amusing is that she says that she's not a feminist in one breath, and then professes her admiration for Gloria Steinem in another. Steinem is one of the most hateful feminists of all time. She was actually telling women in the 1970's that they were worse off then than they were in the 1950's (because of those horrible men of course)!
But this shouldn't be surprising, being that firefly's outright bigotry has been proven already by myself:
Quote:Nope firefly, you're not getting away with denying your bigotry this time.
Quote:
Personally, I don't care about the slogans these women want to wear. I can see the ironic humor
Quote:
I don't think they are harming anyone with a T-shirt that says, "I bathe in men's tears". If you're really such a believer in free speech, and freedom of expression, you should accept their right to do that.
Whenever someone makes light of the suffering of an entire group of people, that is bigotry. Period. You can't backpedal from this firefly; you are a bigot. Your bigotry is out in the open in the form of these quotes for everyone to see. You can't hide from it. I've bookmarked it, and I'll re-quote it everytime I catch you up on your high horse in the future.
I do believe in freedom of speech. I'm not trying to suppress theirs. I'm simply using my freedom of speech to point out obvious bigotry.
But let's play devil's advocate for a moment. If you see nothing wrong with making light of an entire group's suffering, and you believe that others shouldn't be allowed to use their freedom of speech to criticise that bigotry, then you are by default saying that's Ok for people to walk around wearing t-shirts that say:
~I bathe in Muslim tears
~I bathe in faggot tears
~I bathe spic tears
~I bathe in Jew tears
~I bathe in nigger tears
~I bathe in rape victim tears
By default through your justifications, you are condoning that^
What you're also doing is removing your own right to criticise people like hawkeye and Bill when they disagree with you in regards to rape issues. Because remember, the person who says something that others disagree with (according to you) is merely expressing their freedom of speech and should not be criticised back (according to you), because they could just be being "ironic".
ANYONE who claims that they are an "Ironic Misandrist" is no different than someone who claims that they're an "Ironic Racist". It's a copout designed to allow that person the say and do horrible things, and if anyone calls them out on it they can shrug their shoulders and claim that it's all in good fun.
These kinds of people are sociopaths, and that's what you are firefly.
There is NO such thing as "Ironic hatred". But since you think so, then you shouldn't have ANY qualms with for instance people making fun of female rape victims. Because that is freedom of speech too!
Firefly is a man hating bigot.
Never forget that.
http://able2know.org/topic/257742-28
I'm not going to comment on what Found Soul wrote about rape being worse than murder, because I think if she reads through what others (including firefly) have written and really thinks about it, she will come to an understanding of why this is completely untrue.
But it's important to point out that FS is not alone in her initial assertion. The culture we live in regards the rape (of women ONLY) as more heinous than even murder. That is the definition of gynocentrism. We, as a species simultaneously infantilize and deify women. Women are viewed by our culture to be sacred beings, and
any perceived offensive is met with righteous indignation.
In regards to the Rolling Stone fiasco with "Jackie"; I think it's extremely important to remember that when a woman claims that she's been raped, if she goes to the media before going to the police, she is
100% full of ****.
But back to the original post of this thread by maxdancona. If 1 out of every 5 women were
truly being raped, people would be so scared to leave their homes that they wouldn't. And that is contradicted by amongst other things, women being the majority on college campuses.
It's time for people who are arguing against maxdancona's original point to admit they're wrong.
@hawkeye10,
Quote:Ya, someone should get to the bottom of this.
In the Duke, so call gang rape case the prosecutor claimed that the others at the party along with the accuses for that matter would not talk to the police or them.
Turn out completely untrue as all the men at the party was more then willing to talk to the police at the time.
There is a lot of similarity between the two cases except in this case there seems to not even had been a party and once more there appear to be no wall of male silent.
One similarity that sadly there is no question about is that good old Jackie will never be punish for bearing false witness over this matter.
The universities Kangaroo courts was design to punish men not women for claimed misdeeds so she will not even be kicked out of UVA no matter what is proven concerning the truthfulness or lack of same of her statements.
Why Is the Media So Terrible at Covering Stories About Rape?
The 'Rolling Stone' fiasco is a case in point.
The fallout from Rolling Stone's decision to backtrack from a story of a brutal gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house seems to be evidence of problems with the way some news outlets handle the reporting of sexual assaults, especially given Rolling Stone's first instinct was to blame the alleged victim for the errors in reporting the story instead of acknowledging their mistakes. If Rolling Stone's story brought to the forefront the issue of campus sexual assaults, the backpedaling away from the story seems to have started debates about how rape accusations should be handled and considered not only by the media, but by society. This is usually framed as a conflict between those that feel a presumption of innocence, due process and an ability to confront accusers and accusations are vital. And another side which argues those precepts applies to a courtroom, but not society at large, and a climate where sexual assault survivors are comfortable telling their stories and their claims are taken seriously is more important to the way we treat this issue as a culture.
For example, research about false reporting of rape is about as politically contentious as research about climate change. However, studies consistent with FBI data estimate 2 to 8 percent of reported rapes are false. For the sake of argument, I'm going to meet in the middle and peg it at 5 percent. If accurate, it would mean that in every thousand rape cases, there are potentially fifty innocent people labeled a rapist. Fifty people that will have to live with that mark every time they apply for a job, try to get into a university, obtain credit, or anytime someone runs their name through Google. If we have a criminal justice system, where even with a number of safeguards to protect the accused we still convict and sometimes execute people for crimes they didn't commit, should we then take pause before an internet "mob" with none of those safeguards brands someone a rapist?
The flip side to this is an assertion that it's a reflection of society and a valuation of the worth of women when people worry and put the potential suffering of that 5 percent ahead of the misery of the 95 percent of the reported cases, as well as an unknown number of unreported cases. In fact, some argue, as a default, all rape accusations should be believed as a form of cost-benefit analysis, where the societal good of getting rape victims to come forward and seek help outweighs any inconvenience to the accused. And a collective push from an internet cyber-mob when dealing with accusations of rape is not always a bad thing, with many pointing to the rolesocial media played in the Steubenville rape case.
It's into this controversy HBO's The Newsroom waded on Sunday night, with its penultimate episode involving a campus rape subplot that many critics spent the better part of yesterday charging as highly offensive. Aaron Sorkin is considered one of the best writers in his field, but The Newsroom and Sorkin have been plagued by accusations of sexism. And in creating this particular plot point, as well as Sorkin's reaction to the controversy, he seems to have cracked that can of worms wide open, especially if looked at in the bigger sense of how film and television use rape in story. If the news media struggles with how to depict rape in relating the facts of cases, are dramas and comedies tone deaf on the subject?
All too often, rape is not examined as an issue in story, but used for character development and backstory. In that way, it becomes a story point to provide context about a woman's anger, goals and motivation. It's used by writers as a way to create sympathy for female antagonists and other despicable characters. It's used by writers as a way to "break" a good character and (in some eyes) make the character more interesting. And it's something that's prevalent in a lot of fiction. On the one hand, it brings attention to a serious issue and can be portrayed in a realistic way that provides depth to a story. It can become a complex aspect of character's identity that shades the way they look at the world. On the other hand, it can also be a really lazy trope and extremely hacky and maudlin in its presentation. Instead of being fully realized people dealing with trauma, a hamfisted approach can turn the characters into objects to be pitied and left to be little more than a plot device driving the action.
Earlier this year, a sexual assault in HBO's Game of Thrones caused considerable controversyand debates over changes from the source material, whether it was actually rape, and if it was inherently misogynistic. Downton Abbey has depicted a beloved character being viciously attacked, and it's used to examine the contours to the relationship she has with her husband. In ABC's Scandal, the rape of a major character was used as a way to shift the perception of a character from that of a selfish wife using her husband's name and position to being a woman that has sacrificed everything for his advancement. With Netflix's House of Cards, the sexual assault in a female character's backstory informs how she became so ruthless. Rape has been a significant part of shows such as American Horror Story, The Americans, Mad Men, Sons of Anarchy, Boardwalk Empire, The Sopranos, True Blood, Beverly Hills 90210, Private Practice, etc., etc., etc., and has even been used in romance stories, going all the way back to the "Luke and Laura" love story in General Hospital.
From Karen Valby at Entertainment Weekly:
They’re scenes all too familiar to any TV viewer: A woman is shoved down, she screams or sobs, her eyes grow wide and then blank as she wills herself anywhere else in the world. Lately the small screen has felt particularly thick with such moments of sexual horror, as writers have been churning out story lines in which our saints, our heroines, and our hard and cruel women too, are raped or forced to relive their nightmare of it. Try to imagine a singular abuse endured by an equivalent number of male characters. And yet it seems whenever a female character needs a juicy arc or humanizing touch, writers fall back on the easy, awful crime of rape. ... Here’s something else to imagine: the idea that there are stories to tell about the sources of a woman’s anger, her ambition and fear, her brokenness and resolve, that don’t involve pinning her under some man’s heaving chest.
The latest episode of HBO's The Newsroom, "Oh Shenandoah," had some serious dramatic problems. There were imaginary ghost dads, the horrible use of a classic folk song, a mishandled death, and a really awful rekindled love story between two characters Sorkin refuses to stop pushing down the viewer's throats. But it was a story element involving campus rape that has drawn much ire.
The new owner of Atlantis Cable News (ACN) is pushing new media integration of the network, and to that end wants more coverage of sensational topics for ratings and to trend on Twitter. To that end, Don (Thomas Sadoski) is ordered to investigate a website where rape victims can anonymously tell their stories for the stated purpose of warning others about sexual predators. ACN wants to bring the operator of the website, Mary (Sarah Sutherland), on air to discuss the site and confront her alleged attacker. Mary is presented as a passionate individual which the system has failed, and has resorted to her website as an avenue for some semblance of justice. Don seems to believe Mary's story, but he hates both the idea of the interview and Mary's website since they run contrary to what he believes is fair. Don argues he has a "moral obligation" to believe in the innocence of Mary's attacker and not accuse people in the media, who have not been charged or convicted of a crime, for fear of the innocent people that may be hurt.
From Bill Carter's interview with Aaron Sorkin at the New York Times:
Most of the time the conflict on the show is about ideas, and frequently those conflicts stoke a lot of passionate debate in the days that follow a broadcast ... I understood going in that there would be backlash — some of it thoughtful, some of it less so — but that’s a bad reason not to write something ... I cast a great actress who feels like our sister, our daughter, our roommate. I did everything I could to make it difficult not to believe her so that Don’s declaration that he’s obligated to believe ‘the sketchy guy’ would be excruciating. Let me put it a simpler way. She’s not a rape victim. She is an alleged rape victim and I wanted to make it harder for us to remember that. It’s easy to side with the accused in To Kill a Mockingbird. I made it less easy last night.
However, the way the scene plays has many unfortunate implications. As far as I can tell, no anonymous rape accuser website like the one depicted in the episode actually exists. The closest thing to it, and the possible inspiration for the story, may be the rape wall at Columbia University. But I think the scene's biggest sin is that it falls into one of the biggest criticisms against the show, which is that Sorkin and the series sometimes drift into mansplaining (e.g., see "internet girl"). There have been many scenes in The Newsroom where men sit down and tell women the way the world works. And there's an element of that with this scene. It's not as if Don doesn't make fair and reasonable arguments. He does, and the scene goes out of its way to portray Don as trying to do what he thinks is the "right thing" for this woman. But there's also a failure to acknowledge the woman's agency, since in the end Don puts his judgment above hers.
Moreover, in the greater scheme of the season, this particular story element is sort of haphazardly used by Sorkin as part of an indictment of new media, and a contrast of old-school, idealistic journalistic ethics versus the anarchy of social media and citizen journalists. The episode draws parallels between "wild packs" on the internet that stalk celebrities (e.g., Gawker Stalker) and the implications of rape victims accusing their attackers in the media. And, to that end, others have argued Sorkin presents victim-blaming as a noble position within that context.
Emily Nussbaum, The New Yorker: "Look, The Newsroom was never going to be my favorite series, but I didn’t expect it to make my head blow off, all over again, after all these years of peaceful hate-watching. Don’s right, of course: a public debate about an alleged rape would be a nightmare. Anonymous accusations are risky and sometimes women lie about rape (Hell, people lie about everything). But on a show dedicated to fantasy journalism, Sorkin’s stand-in doesn’t lobby for more incisive coverage of sexual violence or for a responsible way to tell graphic stories without getting off on the horrible details or for innovative investigations that could pressure a corrupt, ass-covering system to do better. Instead, he argues that the idealistic thing to do is not to believe her story."
Eric Thurm, Grantland: "There could not have been a worse time for this episode, airing in a week when there really are questions about ethics in journalism, and about how we cover sexual assault and rape in the media."
Julianne Escobedo Shepherd, Jezebel: "The most believable aspect of this scenario is that a pompous male journalist would choose to victim-blame a woman who was raped and attempt to justify it with the weak defense that it's about journalistic ethics. (Sound familiar?) The least believable aspect of this scenario is that this woman would entertain Don's bullshit beyond the first denial. Or perhaps she would, but the way the dialogue played out was perfectly shoehorned into Sorkin's apparent notion that laws on the books are more credible than witness testimony, without accounting for how those rules are distorted and applied selectively in an unjust society."
Jennifer Gerson Uffalussy, The Guardian: "What The Newsroom, and the actual news, has told women everywhere is that their voices do not exist without being first acknowledged and then substantiated by a man in power – who, by definition, is any man."
Libby Hill, A.V. Club: "Aaron Sorkin doesn’t understand who the victim is. He doesn’t understand how empathy works. And he, as a rich, powerful, white man in the United States, doesn’t understand that he is among the most privileged people in the world. 'Oh Shenandoah' tries to assuage our ill-feelings about rape by rampantly defending the rights of famous people from paparazzi, because the complaints of Erin Andrews demand to be heard and validated. This wouldn’t be so troubling if we hadn’t just seen an anonymous college student tracked to her dorm room through rudimentary journalistic stalking and questioned about her rape before being told she shouldn’t tell the world who violated her. Sorkin thinks that women need protecting, especially if they have a target on their back. What he fails to realize is that every woman has a target on her back."
Todd VanDerWerff, Vox: "But at the center of the episode's problems was one terrible idea: Aaron Sorkin isn't sure rape victims should be naming their rapists, because somebody somewhere might miss out on a medical school scholarship."
James Poniewozik, TIME: "Its arguments about whom to 'believe' in the case of rape accusations were terrible. Its arguments about reporting said accusations were terrible. Its reliance on preachy strawman arguments was terrible. Its cranky obsession with the evils of the Internet was terrible. And it added up—in a final season that began with the promise of the series becoming better and subtler in the end—as a terrible episode even by the standards of the series’ earlier, most terrible ones."
The other aspect to this story is that according to Newsroom writer Alena Smith, Aaron Sorkin yelled at her and told her to leave the writer's room when she objected to this idea.
4 Things You Should Know About Fake Rape Accusations
There are a lot of myths swirling around about rape. The research debunks many of them.
Over the weekend, there was a huge media kerfuffle over the discovery that Rolling Stone’s devastating expose of campus rape at the University of Virginia has some discrepancies in it. Specifically, there are discrepancies in the story of one of the alleged victims profiled, who went by the name of “Jackie” and claims to have been date-raped at a fraternity. While the discrepancies are very likely to be the result of Jackie misremembering key details of the night she told reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdley, many anti-feminists have seized on these discrepancies to argue that Jackie is lying. This has, in turn, set off a frenzy of hysteria over the belief that false rape accusations are common, a hysteria that has no real basis in reality. In light of this, here are four myths about rape and false rape accusations, and why there is no reality-based reason for men to be afraid.
Myth #1: Rape is a “he said/she said” situation. You hear the phrase “he said/she said” a lot, which falsely suggests that the odds are even that either party is lying when a woman says she was raped. But that’s simply not true. Most reputable research shows that the vast majority of women who report rape are telling the truth.
It’s hard to pin down an exact number. In 2010, researchers David Lisak, Lori Gardinier, Sarah Nicksa, and Ashley Cote did an analysis of the existing research on false rape reports and found that many of them had extremely shoddy research methods. “There is considerable evidence of widespread misclassification by police departments and enormous disparities among police agencies in how cases are classified,” they write, showing that some studies classified many rape allegations as “false” that were likely quite real but could not be prosecuted for some reason.
When the researchers separated out better studies from less rigorous studies, the most reliable numbers for false reports converge on 2-8 percent of overall reports. For some perspective, as Zerlina Maxwell of the Washington Post notes, 10 percent of car theft reports turn out to be false.
Myth #2: False rape reports are about vindictive women trying to hurt men with whom they had consensual sex. Not only do people overestimate how many false rape reports there are, they often don’t even have the right idea of what happens when false rape reports do happen. Many people believe that false reports happen when a woman, angry about not getting a phone call after a one-night stand or ashamed of having had drunken sex, decides to accuse her consensual sex partner of raping her. This belief is rooted in long-standing misogynist stereotypes of “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”
The reality is a little different, according to a report for the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women, which is part of the National District Attorneys Association. “Despite the stereotype, false reports of sexual assault are not typically filed by women trying to ‘get back at a boyfriend’ or cover up a pregnancy, affair, or other misbehavior,” authors Kimberly Lonsway, David Lisak, and Joanne Archambault write. Instead, “the vast majority are actually filed by people with serious psychological and emotional problems” who lie for “the attention and sympathy that they receive.”
In addition, false reporters often describe “perpetrator who is either a stranger or a vaguely described acquaintance who is not identified by name,” because they “may not want anyone to actually be arrested for the fictional crime.”
Even the most high profile cases of false accusations, such as the Tawana Brawley case or the Duke lacrosse case, did not fit this myth of the vindictive woman getting her revenge. Instead the alleged victims accused men, somewhat at random, in an apparent effort to keep people believing them when holes in their stories began to appear. And yet anti-feminists keep invoking these cases to perpetuate the fear that men are in danger of having their partners accuse of them of rape to get revenge.
Myth #3: Inconsistencies in the story show the alleged victim is lying. The people who believe Jackie lied about her rape have no real evidence for that claim, so instead they are focusing on the inconsistencies in her story, such as her confusion about what frat house she remembers, as “proof” that she must be lying. (Indeed, one of the Internet’s biggest scumbags, Charles C. Johnson, has been using this as a pretext for outing Jackie online.) The problem is that inconsistencies in stories don’t demonstrate that someone is lying. In many cases, they just show that you’re a human being with an organic brain instead of a computer chip.
Scientists have known for a long time that human memory is a shoddy thing, though the last time you wandered around your house looking for a wallet should be reason enough to believe it. It’s not just limited to “minor” memory issues like this, either. As Hal Arkowitz and Scott O. Lilienfeld wrote in Scientific American, memory doesn’t work “like a video recorder.” Instead, “psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them.” Details, through no will of our own, get added and subtracted each time we recall a memory, and the more we think about it, the more distorted it can get over time. As crime victims are called upon to retell their stories over and over--and they often think about them a lot on their own--memories of trauma are often even moredistorted than memories of mundane things, like what you talked over at dinner last night. These distortions do not mean that the basic truth of what they’re saying is wrong, but it does mean that it’s important to find as many external verifications of the details as possible, a step the Rolling Stone overlooked in its reporting.
Myth #4: Feminists want to deprive accused rapists of due process.Every time rape accusations are discussed in the media, even when liberally peppered with the word “allegedly,” a sea of people wring their hands about how the accused is being deprived of his constitutional right to due process. None of the concerned seem unduly worried about this when it comes to crimes that aren’t rape, an oversight that suggests this concern is less about the integrity of the justice system and more about discouraging rape victims from coming forward.
Needless to say, discussing the fact that rape allegations exist and even examining the evidence for them publicly does not deprive the accused of his right to a trial and there is zero evidence that feminists wish to end jury trials for accused rapists. But the ugliness of this myth goes deeper than the surface dishonesty evident in the glib invocations of “due process” to scare people into silence outside of the courtroom. After all, those who are sincerely concerned about due process and getting to the truth of the matter would be clamoring for more investigations and more trials, especially since 60 percent of rapes aren’t even reported to the police. A true concern for due process would result in wanting more of those rapes reported. Instead, we see a continuing pressure on rape victims not to speak out about their experiences, but instead to quiver in silence and shame, afraid of being called liars and sluts while their rapists go free. Due process is a great thing. It will happen more often if victims feel free to come forward without the fear of being publicly castigated.
Amanda Marcotte co-writes the blog Pandagon. She is the author of "It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments."
@bobsal u1553115,
Amanda Marcotte is a well known man hating bigot you dolt!
@bobsal u1553115,
Amanda Marcotte placed on offenders registry
Register-her.com is dedicated to exposing not only the epidemic of false allegations in western culture, but also in identifying government officials, politicians and gender ideologues that exacerbate the false allegation problem through their own conduct. For these individuals we have created separate categories that fall outside the realm of direct offenders.
One of those categories is that of “Bigot” and it refers usually to gender ideologues who have sufficient exposure in mainstream media to influence public opinion, policy makers, or both, in a negative way, due to the promotion of bigoted and sexist ideology.
Amanda Marcotte is one such ideologue and she is placed on the registry here because she is an individual who uses her influence in the public sphere in a way that promotes false accusations and fosters denial about the problem.
When commenting on the Duke rape case, after it became increasingly clear that Crystal Gayle Mangum had lied about the incident and that then District Attorney Mike Nifong had long pursued the case knowing that his only witness lacked credibility, Marcotte had this to say:
“In the meantime, I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good ******* god is that channel pure evil. For a while, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”
She also declared on her blog that people who defended the wrongly accused Duke students were “rape-loving scum.”
These types of statements seek to normalize the assumption of guilt when a rape allegation is made, and also seeks to demonize anyone advocating for the long held legal tradition of due process. The epithets marking Marcotte’s speech are one indication of bigotry, but this was not her first or only incident of such conduct.
She was forced to resign her position as blog master for the John Edwards presidential campaign after making strings of anti-Christian comments. Bill Donohue of the Catholic League publicly demanded that the Edwards campaign terminate Marcotte’s appointment, calling her a “vulgar trash-talking” bigot. The editorial staff of register-her.com agrees.
@firefly,
Good piece with some good ideas for both the protection of the victim and locking in Colleges to stop this violence against women.
The A2K chapter of the Women Haters Club has a meeting.
@wmwcjr,
The sign on the door says "Let's do it right and be fair to everyone club".
@wmwcjr,
Quote:The A2K chapter of the Women Haters Club has a meeting.
Well most of us at least dislike the women for example who are so fast to think that eight young college men in order to become members of some fraternity would gang rape a woman.
You need to have a real low opinion of men to buy into such an unlikely story without any confirming evidence.
@wmwcjr,
No, they're what nonono shaves, and pretends they're woman
@BillRM,
I have a wife and two daughters, one of whom is still at University....the assertion that I would be ok with any of them being sexually mistreated is sick.
@hawkeye10,
Quote:I have a wife and two daughters, one of whom is still at University....the assertion that I would be ok with any of them being sexually mistreated is sick.
Hawkeye who suggested that and why are you replying with that comment to one of my posts?
I have a number of the worthless posters on ignore such as Firefly and Izz so maybe that is what is causing me some mild confusion here.
@BillRM,
I was reinforcing your point that demanding justice in sexual disputes is not an act of hating women. This Wwhatever fella has not so far as I have seen added anything of substance to a thread for a long time.
@hawkeye10,
Thanks Hawkeye for clearing that up for me.
@nononono,
Quote:I'm not going to comment on what Found Soul wrote about rape being worse than murder, because I think if she reads through what others (including firefly) have written and really thinks about it, she will come to an understanding of why this is completely untrue.
But it's important to point out that FS is not alone in her initial assertion. The culture we live in regards the rape (of women ONLY) as more heinous than even murder. That is the definition of gynocentrism. We, as a species simultaneously infantilize and deify women. Women are viewed by our culture to be sacred beings, and any perceived offensive is met with righteous indignation
As a man, if you were repeatedly raped by another man, would you prefer to be dead? Ask yourself that question and that of the many men that have been raped, how they feel, did they come out and speak or hold it in.
The Churches, boys schools, boys, just boys and how their life paned out over the years and how they felt when they "finally" chose to speak, tears welling in their eyes as they spoke...
Young girls 11 years of age, 14 years of age, kidnapped by serial rapist couples, tortured, held captive, impregnated, listening to screams, death and finally escaping years later..
I look at all aspects of rape, not black, not white, not man, not woman, not child and you have to state... It disgusts you, makes you feel ill, feel for the people, see the evil and wonder....... would a quick murder be better than going through all of that.
For some people.
This said topic is about women but let's face it. It happens all the time, all over the World to children, women, men.
The raw emotions that come to light over such an act, the hidden "secret" buried but never forgotten and sometimes coming back to the forefront so powerful that it hurts...
No one deserves to be raped. Women are targets by men, you wonder why women of this Century learn to fight. We are the weaker sex where strength is concerned if attacked. Little boys are targets. Little girls are targets for the same reason, some weak bastard takes on something he/she knows he/she can overpower.
Rape is nothing to not, get passionate about and advocate against full stop.
And as a woman off course, she is going to talk about it and show her disgust if her belief of despising it so much to the core of her being is there.
@FOUND SOUL,
Nononono himself has a one-dimensional view of rape. He's just a woman hater; otherwise, he would acknowledge the role
other men play in the mocking of men who have suffered rape. Let's take the issue of locker-room hazing. A high-school freshman on the football team is assaulted by an older player who forces a pointed object into his rectum with the result that he will have to wear a colostomy bag. Many of the local fans show no sympathy toward the victim because all they care about is their team having a winning season. Does nono get upset about that? No, he doesn't because no women are involved. (Except those who are fans, of course.) Did nono get upset on those occasions when Penn State fans showed little sympathy to Sandusky's rape victims? If nono were truly concerned about male rape victims, he would speak out with regard to scandals of this sort; but he
doesn't. Only when those EE-VILL women are involved!
I just read nono's comment that you quoted to my NON-FEMINIST wife. She wasn't impressed. Her observation is that most of the problems men have are caused by other men. She's right. I've placed nono on "Ignore" permanently because I'm sick and tired of the phoniness of the MR movement. I'll just have to make a greater effort to avoid reading quoted comments of his and other members of the Women Haters Club.
By the way, many feminists wouldn't like me because I'm pro-life and opposed to same-sex marriage. So, you can't say I follow the party line.
@wmwcjr,
Quote:Let's take the issue of locker-room hazing. A high-school freshman on the football team is assaulted by an older player who forces a pointed object into his rectum with the result that he will have to wear a colostomy bag
So the school parents did not care about anything but having a winning team...RIGHT and BULLSHIT alert as such a happening would had been front page news across the nation.
But of course you can prove me wrong by posting a link to such a story something you rarely do unlike most of the rest of us do as a matter of course when making such claims
