You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 06:22:51 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Manslamming  (Read 3654 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AndyZ

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2015, 03:55:11 AM »
Problem whenever someone brings up the boy who cries wolf story in this context:

The moral of that story is that if YOU lie, no one will believe YOU later.

It's not "If YOU lie about wolves, no one will believe ANYONE about wolves."

While the original stated moral was similar to what you said, it contains the added issue that others are likely disbelieved.

Quote
In other words, if you're using someone having made a false rape claim as an excuse to first assume anyone who makes such a claim is making it up, you're not just acting out of some kind of healthy skepticism formed by a history of someone having lied about being raped at some point in the past. You're not working off of "innocent until proven guilty," either.

You're just choosing who you think is guilty without proof first. Specifically, you're deciding the alleged rapist is innocent until proven guilty, whereas his accuser is guilty (of lying) until proven innocent.

This is known as hypocrisy.

The problem of he said/she said extends far beyond rape cases.  The concept of bearing false witness is hardly new.  When it arises, we call upon the prosecution to prove the crime, not the defendant to prove their innocence.  That is what "innocent until proven guilty" means.

Lying is not a crime unless you're under oath, a fact which gets abused by politicians.  When you're under oath, it's perjury, but we don't automatically send people to jail if the person is found innocent and they testified against that person.

Does that make sense?

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Manslamming
« Reply #51 on: January 19, 2015, 06:22:57 AM »
The problem is those that do commit rape don't care if its a wrong thing, and the ones who do care that its a wrong thing don't do it anyway.

+1

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Manslamming
« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2015, 08:46:11 AM »
The problem is those that do commit rape don't care if its a wrong thing, and the ones who do care that its a wrong thing don't do it anyway.

Well, it would be helpful to get rid of the idea that 'no means try harder later' mindset that some people have. 

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #53 on: January 19, 2015, 09:04:28 AM »
Also there would be dispelling the confusion about getting a woman drunk to have sex with them, what constitutes rape, and that a woman only has to say no once.  Most rape is acquaintance rape meaning that the pair know each other.  Teaching a man about what constitutes rape and what is inappropriate not only helps them with their own relationships, but also helps them identify problems with their friends and might make them more proactive in stopping other issues.

Offline Cycle

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #54 on: January 19, 2015, 09:26:49 AM »
"Teach men not to rape" initiatives are a form of manslamming because it goes on the premise that guys don't realize rape is a bad thing, I mean really? Seriously?

Yes.  There are such men.

You're fortunate not to know one.  But others are not as lucky.


Offline Thesunmaid

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #55 on: January 19, 2015, 09:48:58 AM »
I actually recently saw someone yell at my husband simply for holding the door for them. He will routinely do this for men or women if they are walking behind him and they need to walk through the same door whether they are carrying things or not and their age matters very little as well. This woman who has a kid in one hand (a little boy..poor kid) and shopping bags in another decided to take the time to stop and growl at him accusing him of assuming she was weak and could not open the door herself. He replied."No I assumed you had enough to carry with out trying to push the door open and I would have done it even if you were a big burly trucker because its the polite and nice thing to do."And then walked away to me and my son who was waiting for him a few feet away. My son will also hold doors for people whether they are men or women because we have taught him its rude to let a door slam in someones face no matter what their gender is.

This just sort of drives me insane..

and as for the rape thing...if the woman is sober shouldn't the woman also say."No honey you are drunk lets wait till you sober up?" Men are not always raring to go and ready for sex either and an erection is not a sign of wanting sex. I really wish people would stop assuming men are all lecherous pigs...women are all insane victims and just get on with their lives.Women can be perverts too...men can be sensitive and cry at sad movies..why is this so hard to get past?

Yes there are rapists but just assuming that anyone with a penis is just itching to rape someone is ridiculous.Just like assuming woman who end up pregnant are trying to "trap." a guy...yes some women do this...but the majority don't.


Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Manslamming
« Reply #56 on: January 19, 2015, 12:27:51 PM »
     Was more under the impression that "Teach men not to rape" was more, as opposed to the common "defenses" of ahem, "Did she know him? - What did she wear? - Did she fight tooth and nail and get her nose and multiple ribs broken trying to stop him? - Oh no, really, must not have been rape then."

I really don't think it is generally intended to be read as, all men are rapists just itching to happen and they should all be locked up on a long-term basis trying to stop it.  However, there is an observable cultural story about how it's totally the responsibility of women to be fully in control of the situation.  When it's often men who are doing everything under the sun to ignore what they say, make sure they lose control, and after the fact also make sure women get blamed for it all.

Offline Shjade

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #57 on: January 19, 2015, 03:41:36 PM »
Yes.  There are such men.

You're fortunate not to know one.  But others are not as lucky.

Supporting this, here, have an entire study about self-reporting rapists who are quite open about their sexual activities as long as the forms don't actually use the word "rape" in them.

https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

Yeeeeah.

AndyZ: it would only make sense if that disbelief occurred in the sense of "we have to believe he's innocent until proven guilty," as opposed to, "she's a lying whore doing this for attention fuck her and everything she stands for."

One is a question of maybe trying to make sure justice is found. The other is attacking someone on the presumption they're a liar.

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #58 on: January 19, 2015, 03:56:51 PM »
Suppose this would be time to return toward “manslamming.”  There has been no consensus that manslamming is indeed a non-issue, Andy.  There is not enough supporting evidence at the moment to warrant any serious consideration, which there really hasn’t been any serious consideration to my knowledge.  To my view this has thus far been a couple of papers doing a bad job writing on the subject and then a great many anti-feminists picking it up to draw controversy, fear of feminists and make the feminist argument out to be ridiculous.  Manslamming has enough theoretical bases to be potentially true.  Lack of evidence does not make something untrue, just untested. 

Also, as a sidenote the fact that you would say that being raped is preferable to being accused of rape simply shows a lack of insight and that as a man you were never taught to fear being raped.  To say that you would rather a physical assault, potential death, being forced to endure someone else’s whims without your own input or concern and in large part treated as a thing instead of possibly suffering a reputation hit (because we’re just saying accused) is telling of where you think your danger lies.  This is also dismissive of a very serious issue and part of your issue with cheapening the feminist movement. 

Manslamming is a social curiosity, just as manspreading.  This is simply noticing a social attitude and behavior that is part of a larger societal custom.  Manspreading became an issue when it was noticed that men were taking up more space on public transport systems than women to the point they were occupying the space of female passengers.  As a passenger on the same transportation device where we both paid the same money, I should be able to enjoy the same space on that transport as my male co-passengers.  Men do occupy more space than women intentionally.  This is not a man thinking, “fuck that bitch I’m entitled to more space.”  This is simply men being taught to be more dominant, to occupy more space as a show of their dominance and doing this without thinking.  Just as when I sit down, I am not think that I need to be dainty and demure so as not to offend.  I simply was taught and used to a way of sitting, which does conform to the societal view of women not occupying as much space and not intruding on the space around them.  So when you have two groups raised to do that, there is an issue with public transportation and women being pushed to the side on something they paid to ride.

Feminists will get things wrong, certainly.  Feminists will jump off the handle sometimes, come up with convoluted ideas and make irrational claims.  This is just like any ideological group of people.  There are mistakes.  The only reason these mistakes would cheapen a movement that is legitimate is when people take those mistakes and make them out to be something more than what they are.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #59 on: January 19, 2015, 07:52:11 PM »
Was more under the impression that "Teach men not to rape" was more, as opposed to the common "defenses" of ahem, "Did she know him? - What did she wear? - Did she fight tooth and nail and get her nose and multiple ribs broken trying to stop him? - Oh no, really, must not have been rape then."

It's not that I don't think that's worth communicating, I just don't think that phrase does communicate it. Unless one is already aware of this meaning, there is nothing in the phrase which inherently communicates this. A sheer grammatical and literal reading renders the phrase seemingly prejudicial and inflammatory. Some of those who use it will misunderstand the phrase and some of those who hear it will misunderstand the phrase.

Since the objective is cultural change, education and communication, this phrase just seems inadequate to its task. It's more likely to stop conversation than start it, it puts people in a defensive rather than self-reflective mode, does not acknowledge all victims of rape (due to gender), does not acknowledge all perpetrators of rape (due to gender) and implies a lack of agency from women.


Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #60 on: January 19, 2015, 08:03:37 PM »
Well, I think the title was also meant to shock and sort of grab the attenion of people.  A title such as  "How to respect a Lady" does not quite convey the same important as "Teach men not to rape."  Now, I could see changing the title toward "How to Not Rape", but the rape of men was probably still little understood and acknowledged at the time.  I'd also say that the agency of women is over emphasized in almost all aspects of our culture in regard to rape and is probably a minimal consideration here.  The obvious target is getting men involved, not in heaping more responsibilty on women.

Offline AndyZ

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #61 on: January 19, 2015, 08:25:04 PM »
Well, it would be helpful to get rid of the idea that 'no means try harder later' mindset that some people have. 

I have a hypothesis on this.  It doesn't make it right, but it might be why, and if so, it offers a possible solution.

After my first date, I attempted to kiss the girl, and she got all shy and backed away.  So I figured, okay, no kissing.  When she wants to kiss, she'll let me know.

No such notice was given with various other dates, and her roommate eventually flat out asked me why I didn't try to kiss her.

My hypothesis would be that it's considered socially unacceptable for the girl to make the advances, which leaves boys realizing that they have to keep attempting to do so or it won't happen at all.

Now, granted, most people aren't going to be like me where no once means never until I get notice otherwise, but that's the issue.

Perhaps part of the aid there would be in helping girls to understand that it's acceptable to ask out, to make the first move and so on?

Supporting this, here, have an entire study about self-reporting rapists who are quite open about their sexual activities as long as the forms don't actually use the word "rape" in them.

https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

Yeeeeah.

AndyZ: it would only make sense if that disbelief occurred in the sense of "we have to believe he's innocent until proven guilty," as opposed to, "she's a lying whore doing this for attention fuck her and everything she stands for."

One is a question of maybe trying to make sure justice is found. The other is attacking someone on the presumption they're a liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-examination

Would you prefer to only not have this for rape cases or not to have it at all?

Suppose this would be time to return toward “manslamming.”  There has been no consensus that manslamming is indeed a non-issue, Andy.  There is not enough supporting evidence at the moment to warrant any serious consideration, which there really hasn’t been any serious consideration to my knowledge.  To my view this has thus far been a couple of papers doing a bad job writing on the subject and then a great many anti-feminists picking it up to draw controversy, fear of feminists and make the feminist argument out to be ridiculous.  Manslamming has enough theoretical bases to be potentially true.  Lack of evidence does not make something untrue, just untested. 

Also, as a sidenote the fact that you would say that being raped is preferable to being accused of rape simply shows a lack of insight and that as a man you were never taught to fear being raped.  To say that you would rather a physical assault, potential death, being forced to endure someone else’s whims without your own input or concern and in large part treated as a thing instead of possibly suffering a reputation hit (because we’re just saying accused) is telling of where you think your danger lies.  This is also dismissive of a very serious issue and part of your issue with cheapening the feminist movement. 

Manslamming is a social curiosity, just as manspreading.  This is simply noticing a social attitude and behavior that is part of a larger societal custom.  Manspreading became an issue when it was noticed that men were taking up more space on public transport systems than women to the point they were occupying the space of female passengers.  As a passenger on the same transportation device where we both paid the same money, I should be able to enjoy the same space on that transport as my male co-passengers.  Men do occupy more space than women intentionally.  This is not a man thinking, “fuck that bitch I’m entitled to more space.”  This is simply men being taught to be more dominant, to occupy more space as a show of their dominance and doing this without thinking.  Just as when I sit down, I am not think that I need to be dainty and demure so as not to offend.  I simply was taught and used to a way of sitting, which does conform to the societal view of women not occupying as much space and not intruding on the space around them.  So when you have two groups raised to do that, there is an issue with public transportation and women being pushed to the side on something they paid to ride.

Feminists will get things wrong, certainly.  Feminists will jump off the handle sometimes, come up with convoluted ideas and make irrational claims.  This is just like any ideological group of people.  There are mistakes.  The only reason these mistakes would cheapen a movement that is legitimate is when people take those mistakes and make them out to be something more than what they are.


Oh, I meant accused in the sense that everyone believes it and that I have to go to jail and do all the stuff when I didn't do it.  If the choice was between unsuccessfully accused and unsuccessfully raped, I don't really know what I'd pick either.

The point I was trying to make, and will try to make in another way, is that any movement is most easily associated with its fringe elements.

If I say "Republican," you don't immediately think, "Lower taxes, less government, and so on."  The brain instantly goes to "Hatred of women, taxes only for the poor, banning abortion even in the case of rape, and so on."  That's just how categories work.

When Todd Akin mistakenly said how women can't get pregnant when raped, people like Rush Limbaugh came forward and said otherwise so as not to taint the entire party.

Similarly, a lot of Christians have openly said how they disagree with what Westborough Baptist Church is doing.

Not every group does this, but I find it's helpful when a group does.

Certainly some feminists do, like Steampunkette did in her Feminism thread stating that she didn't stand with TERFs.

In my experience, the feminist movement has no clear leader, and tends to be as varied as Christianity in the way it's seen and practiced.  I feel as though this causes problems for feminists the same way that so many point to Todd Akin's words as apparent proof of what Republicans believe.

How can we fix it?

Well, I think the title was also meant to shock and sort of grab the attenion of people.  A title such as  "How to respect a Lady" does not quite convey the same important as "Teach men not to rape."  Now, I could see changing the title toward "How to Not Rape", but the rape of men was probably still little understood and acknowledged at the time.  I'd also say that the agency of women is over emphasized in almost all aspects of our culture in regard to rape and is probably a minimal consideration here.  The obvious target is getting men involved, not in heaping more responsibilty on women.

In my experience, there are two categories to which you can put people.  The ones who care and want to understand, and the ones who don't care and don't want to understand.

You're just not going to reach the latter.  Everything you do will reach the former, and probably harder than you intended it to.

I've told the kissing story to other girls and many find it amusing, but the more you tell men not to do stuff, the ones who care will shy away even further from what you wanted than what you intended, and the ones who don't care aren't going to be affected at all.

I don't consider "We just haven't set it enough" to be a viable tactic.  If it did work, we could cut down on all crimes by just repeating not to do them over and over again.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #62 on: January 19, 2015, 08:32:55 PM »
Well, I think the title was also meant to shock and sort of grab the attenion of people.

I just can't picture most men hearing the phrase thinking, "I need to discover more about this." Especially the people who need to hear it the most, the ones with flawed ideas of consent who are going to think "Well that doesn't apply to me", even though it really does.

The problem is that with the exception of a person who knowingly chooses to commit rape (who clearly have such moral problems anyway that they're not going to be reached), the people who can be stopped easily through education are the ones who don't think they're rapists to begin with. They're more likely to dismiss this statement even though they need to hear the message the most.

Quote
I'd also say that the agency of women is over emphasized in almost all aspects of our culture in regard to rape and is probably a minimal consideration here.

I agree, but I think that's only because it's emphasized in all the wrong ways. The victim shaming that can occur is vile and needs to stop. But there are ways in which the agency of women isn't respected that it should be (speaking here in broad cultural trends). We don't respect the agency of women in waiting for active consent (the whole "she doesn't know what she wants" repugnant idea), we don't respect their agency as persons in not objectifying them and we don't respect their ongoing needs in the aftermath of such an assault.

Quote
The obvious target is getting men involved, not in heaping more responsibilty on women.

I utterly agree with this goal. I just think we need to find better ways of communicating it. (Not that I unfortunately have a better suggestion, it's a tough issue to find the right words to express what needs to be communicated and I'm not good with soundbites).

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Manslamming
« Reply #63 on: January 19, 2015, 09:54:07 PM »
     
It's not that I don't think that's worth communicating, I just don't think that phrase does communicate it. Unless one is already aware of this meaning, there is nothing in the phrase which inherently communicates this.
     Seems to me what we have in both your comments about this and some of the generalized complaints about “manslamming” are people who aren’t experiencing themselves as under attack, complaining mainly about the choice of words when people who do try to create rather short and quick terminology both to comfort each other and start trying to flag and explain the situation in shorthand.

      Honestly, I feel like I have been about where you are and I've moved on and seen there's a bigger picture.  It wasn't (or at least, certainly wasn't mainly or simply) aimed at where you are coming from to begin with.  It's part of another whole, serious – and also familiar to the point of fed up! - conversation about what's regularly going on.  Where what's regularly going on, unfortunately has and often still does flow: "Oh wait, but what did she do to cause this which will could be pinned on her?  Let's just talk about so many contradictory and often conservative ways to make her life appear more controlled, and not talk about what was done to her from the outside."  And while it's perhaps flippant, when you are in that conversation - which is far too damn common and has way too many people supporting it - it is important to say, oh ya know, what if it's really often men's responsibility to just knock it off already?  Cause it is.

Quote
A sheer grammatical and literal reading renders the phrase seemingly prejudicial and inflammatory. Some of those who use it will misunderstand the phrase and some of those who hear it will misunderstand the phrase.
      If you aren't in the conversation and aware of what's going on to begin with, I suppose.  But that's true of a whole lot of things.  Maybe it's not easy to find a sound bite that conveys nearly the same message in a slice of time that people, even people who already understand the situation, will allow?  I dunno.  Sometimes that's a comfort issue with a whole lot of subjects, I guess. 

      But to demand that people never should never ever get even slightly snarky in a way an outsider unfamiliar with the issue at hand and how it's talked about have been playing out, when that speaker and many of her crowd are obviously being demeaned and trampled on again and again with the same bullshit...  Is perhaps a little much.

Quote
Since the objective is cultural change, education and communication, this phrase just seems inadequate to its task.
      Maybe if you believe it's also coming up in a forum mainly aimed at people who don't know the issue to begin with.  Though the point that men need to be responsible to begin with when in so many cases they are found to be aggressors and ridiculous excuses are made that toss blame on women instead?  That should not be all that hard to grasp.  I'm not sure if it's more outrageous that in fact some people still don't even know, or how many try not to accept that is a going cultural story with vast circulation. 

      But at some point it does get ridiculous and if people really don't get it by now, then expecting a perfectly suave and even toned language about something so actually noxious?  I dunno.  Besides, not every working writeup and social media tag is intended so seriously as an external PR campaign.  Some of us have seen how far trying to use "neutral" language has gone and not gone on a number of issues, not just this one...  We even get recent movements in rightist politics to co-opt the format for very nasty intentions: "Oh look, I can use such 'nice, civil, neutral tones and terms' so surely what I say must be fair and just' and underneath it in the reasoning and prescriptions the buried message is, "You know really it's all your problem eat shit and die."   Anyway.  Not sure where all this back in OP (if there is even just one body of material here) was originally aimed, but often language like you're picking through here with "manslamming" is intended partly if not mainly, as support for people who already get the issue at hand in a very visceral way.  And they have already seen how rigid and duplicitous conventions that enable the abuse - including certain two-faced conventions of "civility" even - can get.

------

I'd also second a whole bunch of what Pumpkin said.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2015, 09:55:09 PM by kylie »

Offline Caehlim

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #64 on: January 20, 2015, 01:18:15 AM »
My original Post
I'm avoiding making an immediate response to your post while I consider whether my own internal biases are playing into it.

Edit: Okay, taken a bit of time to think about this.

We even get recent movements in rightist politics to co-opt the format for very nasty intentions: "Oh look, I can use such 'nice, civil, neutral tones and terms' so surely what I say must be fair and just' and underneath it in the reasoning and prescriptions the buried message is, "You know really it's all your problem eat shit and die."
Quote
And they have already seen how rigid and duplicitous conventions that enable the abuse - including certain two-faced conventions of "civility" even - can get.

This was an idea I actually only came across recently the other day from one of the feminist groups on my facebook and it was something that really quite struck me, particularly since I haven't considered it before. Being civil is just something I always try for personally, I never really considered the politics of it before but I can see how civility is usually easiest for the privileged party. I honestly don't know how to process this information since I'm fairly certain that I have a strong subconscious bias towards civility. Honestly it's hard not to see "anger" as meaning "unreasonable", even knowing the unfairness of it.

Quote
Seems to me what we have in both your comments about this and some of the generalized complaints about “manslamming” are people who aren’t experiencing themselves as under attack, complaining mainly about the choice of words when people who do try to create rather short and quick terminology both to comfort each other and start trying to flag and explain the situation in shorthand.

That is true, but I tend to feel the same about causes where I or groups representing myself are under attack personally.

...

Yeah, after looking through your points. I probably could stand to understand people's frustrations more and view these sorts of comments with a less literal or critical eye.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2015, 02:10:00 AM by Caehlim »

Offline Shjade

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #65 on: January 20, 2015, 10:19:49 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-examination

Would you prefer to only not have this for rape cases or not to have it at all?
I'd prefer it only happen in court, where cross-examination is actually relevant to this topic.

Not immediate public reaction.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Manslamming
« Reply #66 on: January 21, 2015, 12:46:31 AM »
Quote from: Caehlim
This was an idea I actually only came across recently the other day from one of the feminist groups on my facebook and it was something that really quite struck me, particularly since I haven't considered it before. Being civil is just something I always try for personally, I never really considered the politics of it before but I can see how civility is usually easiest for the privileged party. I honestly don't know how to process this information since I'm fairly certain that I have a strong subconscious bias towards civility. Honestly it's hard not to see "anger" as meaning "unreasonable", even knowing the unfairness of it.
     Yeah, I'm not trying to say don't be critical or don't ever wish for people to be nice.  I generally like things to be reasonable at least.  If it doesn't make sense as explanation at all, then well at that level of course it doesn't make sense either.  And there are certainly times and angles were that also needs to be said.  Thus for a very small example, I say I'm not the biggest fan of the term "manslamming" itself, even though I think I pretty well understand where it comes from and I lean toward at least some of the spirit that can go with it.  Though probably not so much of the more separatist trends that people have been so tireless about picking on (and sometimes incorrectly assuming to represent 'the heart of all feminism,' as it were).

        It's just that when people shout "Be civil, please," one has to be able to look and poke at exactly what sort of behavior is being demanded there under that title.  If it's something fundamentally exploitative or unbalanced or putting all the weight on people with less power to "live up to" something or other, then that's something to be critical about too.  There's a long tradition of people in power claiming that if their opposition is "angry" or "upset" (and better yet, 'angry young people' cause they're so often young ones who get stuck with little to lose), then they must naturally be in the wrong.  And that is not so reasonable.  It's sometimes quite twisted.  And now we also have these rightist parties trying to emulate the language of liberal diversity and even "due process."  When diversity and equality are the last thing they actually want to uphold, except where they think the going process actually favors holding onto whatever they can and excluding others from getting a slice as much as possible.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2015, 12:48:54 AM by kylie »

Offline AndyZ

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #67 on: January 23, 2015, 12:23:56 AM »
I'd prefer it only happen in court, where cross-examination is actually relevant to this topic.

Not immediate public reaction.

So, when two people give different accounts of a situation, how do you decide which is true?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Manslamming
« Reply #68 on: January 23, 2015, 12:43:26 AM »
Among other things, examination of the physical evidence, correlation with other eyewitness accounts, consistency of the stories (does the story change significantly over time) and so forth.  This is why lawyers and judges go to school for so long and get paid the big bucks.

Offline AndyZ

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #69 on: January 23, 2015, 12:59:45 AM »
That was meant specifically to Shjade, Oniya ^_^

I will consider myself paid back for answering your rhetorical question ;-)

Offline Shjade

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #70 on: January 23, 2015, 04:15:11 AM »
I don't know why you'd say it's meant for me when Oniya answered you perfectly well (other than to avoid dealing with the obvious).

If you're dying for me to add to it, I'll point out attacking one person or the other over things you've assumed to be true or false about their differing accounts does no one any favors, including you.

My turn for a question: why are you fixated on making yourself the arbiter of justice with regard to determining the truth of rape accusations?

Offline AndyZ

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #71 on: January 23, 2015, 04:59:34 AM »
I don't know why you'd say it's meant for me when Oniya answered you perfectly well (other than to avoid dealing with the obvious).

If you're dying for me to add to it, I'll point out attacking one person or the other over things you've assumed to be true or false about their differing accounts does no one any favors, including you.

Well, I figured your answer would be different, especially in regards to this.

I'd prefer it only happen in court, where cross-examination is actually relevant to this topic.

Not immediate public reaction.

I have some difficulty in meshing these two perspectives.

Quote
My turn for a question: why are you fixated on making yourself the arbiter of justice with regard to determining the truth of rape accusations?

Oh, I'm just amused to no end by people demonstrating my point of how bringing up nuances inevitably leads to a sidetrack of issues.  Eventually I just got tired of trying to figure out what we could do to settle the issue.

See, with many people, they have a particular plan of "X doesn't work so we need to try Y."  For an off-topic example, people say that the voting system doesn't work, and we need to consider alternatives.  We can then suggest alternatives, like in the video below.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

When you said that you would rather only have people's accounts questioned in court, I imagined that you might have an awesome alternative method of getting to the truth.  While Oniya's answer is perfectly valid, it doesn't work in this context.

Let me give a very obvious example to this effect:

A: "We should abolish our system of government and all be anarchists."
B: "So how would we deal with all the people stealing and killing each other?"
A: "That's what our courts and police are for!"

See, when one calls for completely removing something from the equation, they should either have ready substitutes for those problems, or simply accept that they can't handle those problems with their idea.

I would have an exceptionally difficult time determining consistency of the story without cross-examination.

Offline Shjade

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #72 on: January 23, 2015, 05:59:17 AM »
When you said that you would rather only have people's accounts questioned in court--
I'm just gonna have to stop you there.
I didn't say people's accounts should only be questioned in court. I said they should be cross examined in court.
It's a pretty specific term.

And, even if it weren't, unless you're directly involved in arbitrating the event, you have no business "cross examining" a rape victim's account.

The rest of your post is irrelevant, following your straw man rather than what's actually being said.

Offline AndyZ

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #73 on: January 23, 2015, 06:18:52 AM »
Okay.  I would have figured that cross-examination was just the court's way of questioning people's accounts.  Could I ask you to elaborate on the differences between the two, and why one is acceptable and the other not?

Offline Atarn

Re: Manslamming
« Reply #74 on: January 23, 2015, 06:28:33 AM »
Ah, the topic of rape. Where I weep for humanity^^.

To the "Better a million yadda yadda liberty slogan!"-peeps, this is exactly what happens. You know that drivel everyone touts about "Oh His Life Was Ruined By False Accusations!!!" Yeah, not happening. At all. The stigma of rape lies squarely on the victim male or female, and it's society's fault, our fault, for letting that happen. And it's perpetuated by the fact that like Pumpkin said earlier, a lot of people are more concerned about bringing out the "false rape!" argument than "Oh fucking hell rape is horrible we need to do something, anything, to stop it!" But that never ever happens in these debates. You et a debate about the issues of rape, and I can guarentee you that the first or second post will be "Well what about those poor innocent men who were falsely accused?" (Also, never an issue if the rapist is a woman because of...Erhm, reasons?)