Rethinking sexual assault laws in Canada

150 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Here's a question...

Given that, as stated in the OP, these alternate, non-adversarial venues are intended as a response to rape culture, does that mean that they will be restricted to cases in which a male has allegedly assaulted a female? Or will cases with other gender configurations(eg. female assailant, male victim) also be heard in these proceedings?

Sexual assault laws are not gender specific. Our rape culture is. If you fix the sexual assault laws then that would be a non gender specific change that just might help change our rape culture. I am trying hard to believe you are not being a contrarian just for shits and giggles. Of course you could be very concerned with all those men who have been raped and lost their cases in court so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I am trying hard to believe you are not being a contrarian just for shits and giggles. Of course you could be very concerned with all those men who have been raped and lost their cases in court so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Or he could also just be logical, and thorough.

I suggest this third possibility because I can be the same way sometimes.  Just upthread I wondered why this was being treated as a case of "Domestic Battery" when it doesn't seem that the two people involved regard themselves as an intimate couple.  I don't have a horse in that race, I'm not painting up my protest banner, and I'm not trying to stir any pot.  But I wondered it, and I thought it wasn't unreasonable to wonder it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder what VOTD wondered either, but you've basically given him the choice of "troll" or "closet MRA supporter".

quizzical

wow.

voice of the damned

kropotkin1951 wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Here's a question...

Given that, as stated in the OP, these alternate, non-adversarial venues are intended as a response to rape culture, does that mean that they will be restricted to cases in which a male has allegedly assaulted a female? Or will cases with other gender configurations(eg. female assailant, male victim) also be heard in these proceedings?

Sexual assault laws are not gender specific. Our rape culture is. If you fix the sexual assault laws then that would be a non gender specific change that just might help change our rape culture. I am trying hard to believe you are not being a contrarian just for shits and giggles. Of course you could be very concerned with all those men who have been raped and lost their cases in court so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Well, whether or not I'm just doing it for shits and giggles, it sems to me that the proposed system, if not gender specific, could lead to a situation where, for example, a man could accuse a woman(possibly falsely) of groping him without consent, and then the woman could be compelled to testify about whether or not whatever sexual contact that did take place between them was consensual.(Since the rule against self-incrimination doesn't apply.)

But, if you think that there aren't any men who would make dubious allegations of that nature, or maybe there are, but the harm done is mitigated by the advantages provided to women in the majority of cases, so be it. I'm just kinda throwning the scenario out there as something I think is a not entirely implausible evnetuality.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Just upthread I wondered why this was being treated as a case of "Domestic Battery" when it doesn't seem that the two people involved regard themselves as an intimate couple.  I don't have a horse in that race, I'm not painting up my protest banner, and I'm not trying to stir any pot.  But I wondered it, and I thought it wasn't unreasonable to wonder it.

Methinks you are confused as to what thread you are in.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

But, if you think that there aren't any men who would make dubious allegations of that nature, or maybe there are, but the harm done is mitigated by the advantages provided to women in the majority of cases, so be it. I'm just kinda throwning the scenario out there as something I think is a not entirely implausible evnetuality.

My apologies for my snarky reply. Reading some of these threads gets my hackles up. You have a good point about unintended consequences. I threw out the change to the Criminal Code as a discussion point and am becoming less and less enamored of it. However I am still convinced a human rights approach would be a better system.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Methinks you are confused as to what thread you are in.

Touché.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I threw out the change to the Criminal Code as a discussion point and am becoming less and less enamored of it. However I am still convinced a human rights approach would be a better system.

I'm with you on both those thoughts.

MegB

An excellent article on the subject here.

Misfit

SJ, please don't redefine rape culture for us and reduce it to childhood brain developmental issues. This is a massive societal problem of which some would classify you as being a part of.

Slumberjack

I think that what contributes to massive societal problems are these huge gaps in mental processing ability.  Evidently.  Apparently rape culture all begins at adulthood if we're following the logic.  Anyway, I've flagged your ass for making a vicious personal attack.  Not to worry, as I don't anticipate anything will be done about it, as per usual.  Just sayin.

Misfit

SI, I think you are MRA. If you are not, then you behave on this board as though you are, which is seen by some as arrogant and problematic. And microanalizing rape culture in childhood development does not further your cause one bit. It reinforces your arrogance in this thread and on the feminist forum.

Misfit

I'm not taking back anything I've said, but I will leave.

Slumberjack

Misfit wrote:
SI, I think you are MRA. If you are not, then you behave on this board as though you are, which is seen by some as arrogant and problematic. And microanalizing rape culture in childhood development does not further your cause one bit. It reinforces your arrogance in this thread and on the feminist forum.

Flagged as more personal attacks.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

MegB wrote:

An excellent article on the subject here.

The comments section seems to have attracted a shitload of MR assholes.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

 

Slumberjack wrote:

Recently I was able to observe two three year old girls playing in the living room and witnessed how possessive each of them were toward the other where it concerned the physical possession of the toys.  At this stage, no one had taught them to be possessive of their things or to be mean toward the other in the sharing of their toys, but there they were, putting on a display similar to that of our so called adult leaders in the business and political world. 

I think you have failed in your logic. In our culture by three years old young people have been bombarded with more nasty media pushing greed as the only good than any society in history.

Quote:

Consider these findings from a study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation:

For children under the age of 2:

  • More than four in 10 (43%) of children under the age of 2 watch TV every day and nearly one in five (18%) watch videos or DVDs every day.
  • Most parents (88%) of these under-2-year-olds who watch TV every day say they are in the same room with their child while they are watching TV either all or most of the time.
  • 74% of all infants and toddlers have watched TV before the age of 2.

For children under the age of 6:

  • On average, they spend about two hours a day with screen media - the same amount of time as they spend playing outside, and three times as much time as they spend reading or being read to.
  • 77% turn on the TV by themselves
  • 71% ask for their favorite videos
  • 67% ask for particular shows
  • 62% use the remote to change channels and
  • 71% ask for their favorite videos or DVDs.

http://www.pbs.org/parents/childrenandmedia/article-faq.html#prevalentTV

Quote:

A study by the National Consumer Council will warn today: 'Those who spend lots of time in front of the TV and computer screen are more materialistic.

'These children argue more with their family, have a lower opinion of their parents and lower self-esteem.'

 

The research will make worrying reading for Gordon Brown, who has said one of his priorities is to challenge the 'erosion' of childhood.

He complained earlier this year that the Internet and TV had 'exposed children increasingly to the pressures of very aggressive advertising'.

The NCC report claims to have uncovered a divided society where the influence of adverts are exerted unevenly across social groups.

The authors found that deprived children are more likely to watch commercial television - as well as programmes made for an older audience.

This means they are exposed to more adverts - and the ones they do watch may not be appropriate for their age group.

The report found: 'Just over half of children - 51 per cent - from disadvantaged areas think that "when you grow up, the more money you have, the happier you are". Similarly, almost half of children - 47 per cent - in deprived areas would "rather spend my time buying things than doing almost anything else".'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-468603/Child-TV-addicts-greedy-u...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

 So your examples live in a bubble not our society. Your survival of the fittest world view is not one I share. I personally think that original sin is nothing more than a social construct not a biological drive that makes us all evil when born. Anyways your thread drift is hardly relevant to a discussion on how we can change the laws to better protect women from our rape culture. Unless of course you are merely saying that humans are hard wired to be rapists and so we should just get over it and live with it.

Slumberjack

Well, my argument is that what we're shown for absorption within our respective bubbles, from early childhood and beyond, could stand a lot of work. Apparently this is in contention for you. What 'survival of the fittest world' are you talking about? I think your responses are disrespectful of reading comprehension and ability, but that is the sort of ignorance one has to expect these days.  So far, if I am reading you correctly, you have managed to draw the following conclusions from what I have written:

  • It is an argument in favor of a society based on 'survival of the fittest,' which is best accomplished if we all live in separate bubbles.
  • Human beings have an inherent evil about them, an original sin.
  • Discussions about how to adjust laws around sexual assault should not be informed by sociological exchanges. As Harper might agree with, such discussions are no place to be doing sociology.
  • Nothing can be done about rape, so we shouldn't bother trying.

Such a grotesque reading has to be done on purpose to score some on the cheap.  No one could be that stupid...or could they?

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
I also see no way of keeping that genie in the bottle. Tweaking the protection against self-incrimination is huge.

It would put jurisprudence back several centuries to the inquisition.  Without the legal ability to torture the accused though, I'm afraid we'd be treated to little more than Pythonesque skits up on the stand.  "You did it!"  "No, I didn't!"  "Yes you did, tell us everything you did on the night in question, and leave nothing out!"  "I had supper and went to bed."  "No you didn't!"  "Yes I did!"

Anyone with even half a mind for these matters could foretell what this would turn into, if it were to be put into practice that an accused had to tell all about themselves under oath.  I suspect that the objective of having an accused take the stand in their own defence is more related to subjecting the individual to a form of pillory than any modern legal process.  It seems to be more about vindictiveness and shaming of the suspect than truth gathering.  That would serve some people's sense of justice very well if we were to take certain social media comments about the Ghomeshi case seriously, but a civilized society doesn't have to lend it a shred of validity as part of the legal process, as the ensuing centuries of whatever progress we are capable of have so informed us.

I really do think that violence and violence against females in this society should start to be addressed in the very early stages of a child's development.  What compels sick fucks like Ghomeshi, Williams, Bernardo and all the other abusers of lesser infamy?  If the mental health sciences can put answers and possible solutions to such questions, then this could lead to innovative deprogramming methodologies being employed early in the life of a child, or deconstruction, as it were, of already violent minds before they take their place in society in the transition between childhood and adulthood.  

One issue is that many believe that the human brain and human thought processes have evolved alongside the times we like to call modern, and then we're jolted back to the reality that this is not always so when the tragedy of predatory violence against women occurs.  But a patriarchal, domineering society such as this couldn't make the inroads that it does toward the questionable, intellectual development of your average male if a welcoming receptacle of a mind wasn't already present. 

Recently I was able to observe two three year old girls playing in the living room and witnessed how possessive each of them were toward the other where it concerned the physical possession of the toys.  At this stage, no one had taught them to be possessive of their things or to be mean toward the other in the sharing of their toys, but there they were, putting on a display similar to that of our so called adult leaders in the business and political world.  Transposed to a situation between a boy and girl, or a man and woman, or country to country, the only variable that changes where it concerns the possessiveness and selfishness of human nature is the physical power imbalance. 

It seems to me that where violence against women is concerned, what we are talking about in part is the shock and disbelief that occurs within us to realize that these occurrences are still possible even as we have this modern sense of ourselves that by now, we should be beyond all of that.  We have magnificient inventions, modern processes and laws, we're on the road to equal and just societies, we're exploring space and everything,  All of which constitutes an overinflated view of our own magnificence, considering that the planet is being systematically destroyed in the process.  It is when people are confronted with the actual reality - that certain minds do not seem capable of surpressing the violence that evidently lays within - that everyone of the gender gets indicted.  Those who attempt to turn away from our violent anthropology toward a better way of being are expected to account for the ones who have not.  Providing personal examples of a non-violent existence is apparently not enough.  Someone has to pay, and it's too bad if they get indignant about it.  That's part and parcel of rape culture after all, to refuse responsibility for a lack of human development and behaviour.  I find that our entire way of interacting with one another where problematics of this nature are concerned to be little more than daily, micro-exercises in what I attempted to describe.  Which brings us back to the importance of early childhood development as our only salvation in the long run.

Slumberjack

If you find I am being belligerent on this issue, or that this is just more dick swinging, it is simply a reaction to the stick swinging.  I refuse to be anybody's pinata for holding a different point of view.

quizzical

yet you want others to be yours??????

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So Slumberjack do you have any ideas on how to improve our system of dealing with sexual assault or just more obtuse and tangential observations on the human existence.

Slumberjack

Yes, actually I do.  My idea for improvement would be for you to seek the help of people who have a bit more of a clue than you when it comes to criminal justice matters.  If they are not immediately available, my suggestion would be to wait until they are.

Slumberjack

Is that to do with my referencing pre-history, the Dark Ages, that woodcut image of the hanging tree from the time of the 30 Years War as an example of summary justice, the odd bit here and there about Fascism, etc?  I'm willing to climb down.

Misfit

Kropotkin has studied law at university. What is your legal background, SJ? Kropotkin can stay on topic and he also knows the difference between psychology and sociology. Just sayin.

Slumberjack

Just that it seems odd to refer to criminal court as a 'fools' game,' and still rely on having studied law in university as part of one's credentials.  I'd be interested in knowing, from the point of view of a professional in the biz, as to what other sectors of the legal system can be considered a 'fool's game.'  Or is it just the criminal court part?  I'm curious because I am not a big fan of institutions, particulary the justice system as a whole, and I'd like my biases vis-à-vis the systemic problems that taint the whole structure confirmed by a professional.

Slumberjack

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I think you have failed in your logic. In our culture by three years old young people have been bombarded with more nasty media pushing greed as the only good than any society in history.

In my account I was referring to the two three year olds that I observed one day in my living room, in the knowledge of what their parents allow them to watch, and what they do not allow them to watch.  In the broader context of course, certain types of reinforcing input have great influence in the developmental process, or the lack thereof, which makes the prospects for positive development worse if children are being bombarded with imagery and examples that are always putting them at competitive odds with their siblings and playmates.  You do more to make my case with your statistics that there needs to be new ways of educating children.  All animals in fact demonstrate certain compulsive similarities where it concerns possessiveness and control.  They do not become adult animals, and one fine day decide to possess and dominate within their domain.  I would argue that this is a gradual process, irrespective of what they are able to observe from example.  This is where some like to climb up onto their anthropological high horse to declare that we are better than animals.  Well, many of us probably are, but then again there are more than enough examples to demonstrate that we are not.  It is an area in which our predatory, patriarchal structures and institutions are not being level with us about, for reasons that should be suspect. 

Obviously when children are bombarded with negative imagery this will impact in some manner on the outcomes as adults. 

Misfit

That sounds like a lovely entirely new thread topic.

Slumberjack

Perhaps, but it was introduced by the originator of this thread at post #8?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So Slumberjack do you have any ideas on how to improve our system of dealing with sexual assault or just more obtuse and tangential observations on the human existence.

Thanks for replying with nothing of substance. I have seen our justice system up close and have been left less than impressed. That is why I opened this discussion because it needs changing especially in the lack of protection it gives to women living in our modern day rape culture. I would be happy to contribute to a thread on other areas of law as well but would prefer to keep the focus of this thread on the one area that IMO is perhaps the most egregious.

A fools game is a game in which ones chances of winning are negligible and trending to zero. I think the way our sexual assault laws work presently is in fact a fools game for women

Misfit

And I agree.

lagatta

I would like to remind the guys that they are writing in the feminism forum.

Slumberjack

I guess that's our cue to wrap things up.  I was wondering why it took so long.

MegB

Slumberjack wrote:

I guess that's our cue to wrap things up.  I was wondering why it took so long.

Oh spare me your wounded privilege. The rules of the feminists forum are clear. Argue from a feminist viewpoint or post elsewhere.

Slumberjack

Why don't you quit with your arbitrary personal attacks, and deal with the personal attacks that I've flagged?  Thought not.

I'll post wherever I want, concerning any topic of interest, until I'm unable to.  If you want to unfairly take the side of drive by trolls and habitual thread killers like lagatta, as if I'm blind to where it is I am posting, you do have a remedy available to you.  Use it instead if this boring and biased kindergarten cop routine of yours.

quizzical

there was no fkn personal attack. lololol

misfit your words are important in this thread. please don't be silenced by his silencing ploys.

 

Slumberjack

Silencing ploys?  You have to be joking, or you are a joke yourself, which is more likely.

Quote:
So in this thread about how to change the law to protect women in our rape culture society, do you have anything to say about the subject or are you content the law is good enough as it stands now? Or maybe you think men need more protection from women who make complaints? 

Quote:
Cody, this is the feminist forum and the thread title specifically pertains to sexual assault, and NOT violence against people in general. Cut your mysogynistic and sanctimonious crap or get out of the forum! 

Quote:
SJ, please don't redefine rape culture for us and reduce it to childhood brain developmental issues. This is a massive societal problem of which some would classify you as being a part of. 

Quote:
SI, I think you are MRA. If you are not, then you behave on this board as though you are, which is seen by some as arrogant and problematic. And microanalizing rape culture in childhood development does not further your cause one bit. It reinforces your arrogance in this thread and on the feminist forum. 

Quote:
Unless of course you are merely saying that humans are hard wired to be rapists and so we should just get over it and live with it.

Quote:
I would like to remind the guys that they are writing in the feminism forum. 

Like we're fuckin stupid or something and need some twit to occasionally furnish us with bearings?

Quote:
Oh spare me your wounded privilege. The rules of the feminists forum are clear. Argue from a feminist viewpoint or post elsewhere.

No indication of rules having been broken, just this drive-by attack that supports all of the personal attacks that take place here and in other threads like this.  Other threads wind up being of the same order and worse.  Apparently a feminist who is also a man must stfu while this sort of crap is being flung around left right and center.

quizzical

insert meg's "oh spare me...."  here

Slumberjack

Flagged for blaming victims.

MegB

Slumberjack wrote:

Why don't you quit with your arbitrary personal attacks, and deal with the personal attacks that I've flagged?  Thought not.

I'll post wherever I want, concerning any topic of interest, until I'm unable to.  If you want to unfairly take the side of drive by trolls and habitual thread killers like lagatta, as if I'm blind to where it is I am posting, you do have a remedy available to you.  Use it instead if this boring and biased kindergarten cop routine of yours.

Leave this forum or be banned. Your choice.

Slumberjack

I refuse, and will take door number 2.  I won't be intimitated by you or anyone else for holding a different point of view from the attackers.

quizzical

people who hold a different pov from you are 'attackers'? lmaooooooooooooooooooooooo

lagatta

Thread killer? Does that make me one of the three Fates?

 

quizzical

yup i think so lagatta.  can't talk about rethinking sexual assault the thread has to be full of shit so no one will discuss it.

eta. oh i thought you meant sj being a thread killer. not you.

Slumberjack

quizzical

lagatta

Slumberjack

I don't care.  Right is right.  The two of you have been bullying posters for as long as I can remember.

Cody87

Devogenes wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

Personally, I'd like to get people to stop violence against people.


What's the point of this statement in this context other than to denigrate the feminist perspective?

Do you understand why this and "all lives matter" statements are problematic?

The point of this statement is thus:

The #BlackLivesMatter movement has arisen due to a number of innocent/nonviolent Black people (mostly men...) being murdered by police officers. It's (edit to clarify: the blacklivesmatter movement) not a problem. The #AllLivesMatters movement is simply pointing out that not only Black people get murdered by police officers - remember Sammy Yatim?

So while members of the #BlackLivesMatter movement (in this case, in Canada) are calling for, last I checked, special handling of cases by the SIU that involve specifically black people, probably a better response that would be even more likely to succeed would be one that also appeals to people outraged by incidents like what happened with Sammy Yatim. Perhaps, I don't know, find a solution that will also stop (or at least reduce the instances of) police from murdering caucasians, asians, and indigineous people, to name a few?

In the case above, the issue is police murdering people, not police murdering black people.

In the case of what happened in the recent high profile sexual assault trial, the outcome had very little to do with the charge or the genders of the complainants or the accused. There is a deliberate bias in favour of the accused, of course (innocent until proven guilty), but there are legitimate angles where changes could possibly be suggested/implemented, discussion of which was taking place in this thread before quizzical objected to "the men" poking holes in one of the suggestions (which is what would happen in the court of public opinion, the next step where this battle would need to be fought for any change to take place).

All "the men" were getting at is that you'll reach a wider audience if instead of saying "sexual assault cases need special handling because it's he said vs she said and discriminates against victims" you say "cases which rely on only witness testimonies are vulnerable to an unrealistically high burden of proof; we propose changes x, y, and z to better serve the interest the public has in preventing cases where an accused is able to walk free due to (insert identified flaw in the current system here).

In other words, imagine everyone outraged about sexual violence as group A. Now imagine everyone outraged by other offenses which can be almost as difficult to prove as (smaller) groups, B, C, and D. You will build a larger movement more likely to be able to enact change in the real world by groups A, B, C, and D working together than group A alone.

So when I say "I'd like to get people to stop violence about people," I'm just pointing out that (even though sexual violence is a huge problem) not everyone particularly cares - many might say they care but they are actually "slactivists" who do nothing. Show them how they could be impacted if they ever had to make a claim that was "he said vs she said" and you stand a much better chance of convincing them to support fundamental changes to how society approaches justice - including in cases of sexual assault.

When you purposely exclude large swathes of your potential support, and demonize and shame even those who support your cause in principle but disagree or even just have questions on minor issues or what the best course of action is, you alienate more people than you recruit.  

Quote:
Quote:

As this thread shows, one of the biggest issues with any change to how specifically charges of sexual assault against women are handled, is that there are other forms of crime and violence, and those that champion the fight against sexual assault against women tend to completely ignore every other form of crime and violence (whether intentionally or not).

Dude. This is like saying that everytime you have pancakes for breakfast you're "completely ignoring" the validity of oatmeal.

You can't have everything for breakfast, but there's lots of options. You can have what you want, let other people have what they want. All that matters is that everbody is eating the most important meal of the day. My eating pancakes doesn't interfere with you having your oatmeal.

Get it? It's not the respnsibility of feminists to solve all other problems before or concurrently with the problems specifically facing women.

If you want to make it your projec to end violence against all people, then go ahead. Good luck coming up with an action plan.

Nice straw man. I never said feminists had to solve all other problems. I just suggested (apparently not clearly enough) that "stopping violence against women by men" is an unnecessarily narrow and biased view of the issue, that will not attract as much support as a similar "stopping violence" statement, when solutions to the second will by definition also apply to the issue you want fixed.

If you stop police from murdering people, that will stop black people form getting murdered by police. So while I support stopping police from murdering black people, I would still rather see police stop murdering all people since black people are people too and will benefit from an overall reduction in police murders.

If you work to discourage violence against people (regardless of gender), and more effectively punish those who commit violence (regardless of by or against whom), this will by definition discourage violence against women because women are people too and will benefit from an overall reduction in violence.

There are issues with affect women uniquely. Violence, including sexual violence, isn't one of them. Violence and sexual violence against both genders, committed by both genders, is "frowned on" by society while being actively glamorized by the media through television, movies, and sports, among others, every single day, and arguably sanctioned by the courts when there is no physical evidence to support a claim of violence. How do you expect to curb violence against women specifically and specifically by men without addressing the rest of the violence? What reasonably fair and objective person would believe that we need to only stop "violence against women by men" without addressing violence against men by men, violence against women by women, and violence against men by women - to say nothing of trans and non-conforming persons?

MegB

Cody87 wrote:

Devogenes wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

Personally, I'd like to get people to stop violence against people.


What's the point of this statement in this context other than to denigrate the feminist perspective?

Do you understand why this and "all lives matter" statements are problematic?

The point of this statement is thus:

The #BlackLivesMatter movement has arisen due to a number of innocent/nonviolent Black people (mostly men...) being murdered by police officers. It's (edit to clarify: the blacklivesmatter movement) not a problem. The #AllLivesMatters movement is simply pointing out that not only Black people get murdered by police officers - remember Sammy Yatim?

So while members of the #BlackLivesMatter movement (in this case, in Canada) are calling for, last I checked, special handling of cases by the SIU that involve specifically black people, probably a better response that would be even more likely to succeed would be one that also appeals to people outraged by incidents like what happened with Sammy Yatim. Perhaps, I don't know, find a solution that will also stop (or at least reduce the instances of) police from murdering caucasians, asians, and indigineous people, to name a few?

In the case above, the issue is police murdering people, not police murdering black people.

In the case of what happened in the recent high profile sexual assault trial, the outcome had very little to do with the charge or the genders of the complainants or the accused. There is a deliberate bias in favour of the accused, of course (innocent until proven guilty), but there are legitimate angles where changes could possibly be suggested/implemented, discussion of which was taking place in this thread before quizzical objected to "the men" poking holes in one of the suggestions (which is what would happen in the court of public opinion, the next step where this battle would need to be fought for any change to take place).

All "the men" were getting at is that you'll reach a wider audience if instead of saying "sexual assault cases need special handling because it's he said vs she said and discriminates against victims" you say "cases which rely on only witness testimonies are vulnerable to an unrealistically high burden of proof; we propose changes x, y, and z to better serve the interest the public has in preventing cases where an accused is able to walk free due to (insert identified flaw in the current system here).

In other words, imagine everyone outraged about sexual violence as group A. Now imagine everyone outraged by other offenses which can be almost as difficult to prove as (smaller) groups, B, C, and D. You will build a larger movement more likely to be able to enact change in the real world by groups A, B, C, and D working together than group A alone.

So when I say "I'd like to get people to stop violence about people," I'm just pointing out that (even though sexual violence is a huge problem) not everyone particularly cares - many might say they care but they are actually "slactivists" who do nothing. Show them how they could be impacted if they ever had to make a claim that was "he said vs she said" and you stand a much better chance of convincing them to support fundamental changes to how society approaches justice - including in cases of sexual assault.

When you purposely exclude large swathes of your potential support, and demonize and shame even those who support your cause in principle but disagree or even just have questions on minor issues or what the best course of action is, you alienate more people than you recruit.  

Quote:
Quote:

As this thread shows, one of the biggest issues with any change to how specifically charges of sexual assault against women are handled, is that there are other forms of crime and violence, and those that champion the fight against sexual assault against women tend to completely ignore every other form of crime and violence (whether intentionally or not).

Dude. This is like saying that everytime you have pancakes for breakfast you're "completely ignoring" the validity of oatmeal.

You can't have everything for breakfast, but there's lots of options. You can have what you want, let other people have what they want. All that matters is that everbody is eating the most important meal of the day. My eating pancakes doesn't interfere with you having your oatmeal.

Get it? It's not the respnsibility of feminists to solve all other problems before or concurrently with the problems specifically facing women.

If you want to make it your projec to end violence against all people, then go ahead. Good luck coming up with an action plan.

Nice straw man. I never said feminists had to solve all other problems. I just suggested (apparently not clearly enough) that "stopping violence against women by men" is an unnecessarily narrow and biased view of the issue, that will not attract as much support as a similar "stopping violence" statement, when solutions to the second will by definition also apply to the issue you want fixed.

If you stop police from murdering people, that will stop black people form getting murdered by police. So while I support stopping police from murdering black people, I would still rather see police stop murdering all people since black people are people too and will benefit from an overall reduction in police murders.

If you work to discourage violence against people (regardless of gender), and more effectively punish those who commit violence (regardless of by or against whom), this will by definition discourage violence against women because women are people too and will benefit from an overall reduction in violence.

There are issues with affect women uniquely. Violence, including sexual violence, isn't one of them. Violence and sexual violence against both genders, committed by both genders, is "frowned on" by society while being actively glamorized by the media through television, movies, and sports, among others, every single day, and arguably sanctioned by the courts when there is no physical evidence to support a claim of violence. How do you expect to curb violence against women specifically and specifically by men without addressing the rest of the violence? What reasonably fair and objective person would believe that we need to only stop "violence against women by men" without addressing violence against men by men, violence against women by women, and violence against men by women - to say nothing of trans and non-conforming persons?

a) Alllivesmatter is racist.

b) It's off topic

c) You aren't aruguing from a pro-feminist point of view. Get with the program or get out.

Pages