You assume only your movement knows what it is and everyone elsewhere has it wrong. You never question this assumption - you just *believe*.
"I'm so tired of the "not all men" argument"
Which doesn't make it false. 2+2=4 regardless of how that makes you feel.
"CONGRATULATIONS YOURE NOT A RAPIST"
Congratulations, you haven't murdered any of your babies lately.
" don't discredit the MILLIONS of men (and women for those of you who just can't stand for a post to be exclusively about women only"
You just had to add that bit, didn't you.
Feminist: "We are an equality movement! We care about all women equally!"
Non-Feminist : "But what about the men then..."
Feminist: "SHUT IT, WORM!"
"Stand up for us"
No. If you weren't a hypocrite, you'd realise that equality means you help us and we help you. Instead, you portray us as some evil collective, and demand us all protect you from the few who are evil.
No.
We are free. We shall decide who deserves our protection. Besides, after decades of telling us that "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle", suddenly you want a spin on our wheels?
HeForShe is just traditionalism without any of the benefits. We ain't taking a bullet for you. You don't deserve it. Go fight your own battles.
"Realize that women get raped all the time"
They don't, so we won't.
2=2=4. The answer won't change just because it's inconvenient, or because it hurts your feelings, or because you are scared of the numbers.
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." 1984 by George Orwell, Part 1, Chapter 7, pg. 84.
"at a lot more of an alarming rate than men."
False in the United States but the thing is, Mary P Koss et al made damn sure to keep it off the books, and feminist media consistently sweeps it under the rug.
Might want to look up an old film called "Rape culture" - made by Feminists - the irony is the term was about a culture that allowed MEN to be raped.
" In society, we blame the victim who is a woman. "
Rubbish. A woman who claims to have been raped has often had the accused murdered on the spot. Courts will treat her far more gently than any other accuser, and less evidence is required for a conviction. So long as it's a woman accusing a man, of course.
"Get off your high horse"
We ain't yer White Knight. Fight your own damned battles.
" if you aren't helping, you ARE apart of the problem."
So any black woman who doesn't stop black women committing crimes is equally responsible? How very interesting! I look forward to your preaching your philosophy to them!
"Make a post about the (far less but still important) victims that are men"
In Feminism, all are equal - but some are more equal than others.
The DRC is a place where there is a real Rape Culture; where raping enemies is normal as a means of torturing them, and as a sick entertainment.
"40% of the women — and 10% of the men — who said they were subjected to sexual violence were assaulted by a woman"
You will never hear about that from Feminists. They don't want to acknowledge that women can be evil.
The Duluth Model - the model they use in rape and domestic violence centres - holds that ALL violence is the fault of men.
This robs women of their humanity - and sets them up to be victims. If all men died, these rapes would continue - and feminists would just re-label female rapists "men". How can a woman rape? “Some take sticks or a banana, others take a bottle or knives,” the U.N. employee explains. Her close friend’s daughter was violated repeatedly by a woman with a carrot who wanted “to spoil her body,” she says.
NO. Rape is sex without consent. Penetration is not required. A mother going down on her child is a rapist, even if her hymen is never broken. “Their minds have altered,” says the Congolese U.N. employee...
Citation needed. How does this person know this? Do they have access to Star Trek type medical scanners? Maybe they have just gone through the same experiences as the men, or are just evil like the men?
Maybe women are human - like men?
“Women who were raped for years are now raping other women.”
Citation needed.
She didn’t ask any of those women why they were doing it, or what their experiences were, and she doesn’t care whether or not the male rapists were also brutalised or indoctrinated.
Men are bad, women are victims - even when women are raping men and other women.
Because violence against women is unacceptable! Errr... wait...
Just against women?
This is equivalent to having it say violence against straight people, or white people, or tall people... why narrow it down just to women, it takes MORE effort to do that than to just say "domestic violence is wrong".
These regional services can also provide information and referrals for women who have experienced domestic and family violence or sexual abuse and assault. "
Yup. It's pretty clear they aren't going to help you if you're male.
"The organisation also provides counselling for women who experienced sexual assault in childhood from a number of Women’s Health Centres across NSW. "
So here's a question. Say you were born a girl, and were raped. You would get help. But say you were transgender... on the day you transitioned, you would be thrown out, no support, regarded as a victimiser automatically.
"Rape & Domestic Violence Services Australia is committed to upholding the rights of all people to live in a socially just, equitable and non violent society."
Social 'Justice'? So long as you're not male, of course.
Hmm. Studies show it ranging from 2-90%. The true number is unknowable - except that it isn't zero, now, is it?
Still, quoting Manboobz as your source means you aren't terribly serious about facts.
I love the way you see a recording of sexual encounters as being a way of enabling rape - so even if a man has a recording of an encounter with a woman going "I want sex" every thirty seconds, you'll turn around and have that man charged as a rapist?
Yup. That's the sort of world you want us to live in.
Amanda Marcotte, you are the biggest recruiting tool we could wish for.
An alleged offender must have a "reasonable" belief that a victim had consented. The new definition means the defendant must detail the steps they have taken to find out whether the victim has consented.
Note: They have no defined standard here for innocence. They have to present what they have and hope it is enough. Do you record all your sexual activity? Is it signed? Are there witnesses to the signing? What about blood tests - she might have been drinking - can you prove she wasn’t? If she was, her consent is invalid. You just should have known.
Removal of a time limitation that prevented prosecution for some child sex offences committed before 1991
It’s retrospective. You kept all your records of what happened thirty years ago, didn’t you? Remember: no physical evidence of a crime is required. If a woman says “give me thirty grand or I’ll say you raped me”... you better have that thirty K!
"an offender must prove that if they believed a victim was consenting, that belief was not unreasonable". How? Will video recordings and witnesses be required? Some sort of contract? All this is is a license to accuse any man of rape, without a defense.. and I guarantee you no women will be convicted.
1UCLA Anxiety Disorders Research Center, Department of Psychology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095-1563, USA. ktaylor@psych.ucla.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies indicate that a small percentage of rapes are reported to law enforcement officials. Research also suggests that rapes perpetrated by a stranger are more likely to be reported and that rapes involving drugs and/or alcohol are less likely to be reported. College women represent a unique and understudied population with regard to reporting rape.
METHODS: In the current study, the authors interviewed a national sample of 2,000 college women about rape experiences in 2006.
RESULTS: Only 11.5% of college women in the sample reported their most recent/only rape experience to authorities, with only 2.7% of rapes involving drugs and/or alcohol reported. Minority status (ie, nonwhite race) was associated with lower likelihood of reporting, whereas sustaining injuries during the rape was associated with increased likelihood of reporting.
DISCUSSION: Reporting, particularly for rapes involving drugs and alcohol, is low among college women. Implications for policy are discussed.
________________________________________________
Hmm. So it’s 11.5% now, many years later, despite campaigns. It was 16% before by your evidence.
“Approximately one in seven U.S. women have been raped in their lifetimes“
Straight away that gives me cause to doubt. Scientifically, you just say the percentage with the uncertainty. If you say approx one in seven, it sounds like maybe you don’t know… maybe you are just guessing.
What’s the reference? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3211043/#R1 1. Kilpatrick DG, Edmunds CN, Seymour AK. Rape in America: A report to the nation. Washington, D.C: National Victim Center; Charleston, SC: Medical University of South Carolina; 1992.
Oh, that’s not re-assuring. So we are back to the report I dealt with before. So the reference a supposedly scientific paper uses is that it was the opinion of a feminist group.
Huh.
“Estimates from the 1990s and 2000s indicate that only 16–20% of forcible rape victims report the rape to law enforcement“
As I said before, if you believe what they are saying is true - and so far it’s really not credible - but even if the voice of God proclaimeth it’s verity, o yea, then what it means is RAPE REPORTING HAS DIMINISHED DESPITE, OR PERHAPS, BECAUSE, OF FEMINIST CAMPAIGNS.
Despite the now ever-present rape support groups, better test kits, free legal advice… this beggars belief.
“College is a high-risk timeframe for sexual victimization, with studies reporting that one in four college women have been raped or experienced an attempted rape.8 “
And I just lost all respect for this, because it’s using a survey that - frankly, was a hoax - using that as it’s reference. It’s complete bullshit.
I was going to search and find what scientists cited this paper, because that’s how you know how credible it is - but it’s now revealed as just another piece of propaganda.
So unless you have female-only campuses, with strict separation of the sexes at all times, then you won't be able to eliminate what a feminist would define as rape.
(Of course, considering how male educational standards are going down the toilet, a female only educational environment might not be too far off)
Of course, a more practical solution would be if the Feminists were to be moved into the female-only environment they have threatened to move to since the 1960s. Tasmania would fit them all.
Lovely place. Has a place called the Franklin Dam. They could rename it 'Patriarchy' and have fun smashing it, to while away the long nights. And when it bursts, drowning them, they could curse, in their last breath, "Damn that Patriarchy"!
I'm kidding. Patriarchy never existed - just like the Dam.
Well, the only acceptable yes to a feminist is a verbalised one - pronounced before any shift in position or activity. To any non-feminist, non-verbal communication is an option. If someone's mouth has been applied to your genitals, you don't need to ask if you can reciprocate.
Feminists claim only verbal consent counts - I can only presume good feminists never have the body parts of their lovers in their mouths - which may well be the case as that would be giving pleasure to a male, which is clearly antifeminist.
Even if the lover had recorded the entire event with witnesses and the required number of consent questions had been asked at the required intervals, and every yes had been signed off on by a Justice of the Peace - it doesn't matter.
In court, she can always claim he gave her a 'look'. How can he prove otherwise. He's presumed guilty, not innocent.
3) Oh. Feminists are still going on about Blurred Lines. Really.
Being in a relationship is implied consent for everyone who is not a feminist.
And I understand, I really do, that feminists view as sex with men as 'problematic' as best; men are hideous rape-monsters, but sometimes a feminist gets an embarrassing itch and needs someone else to scratch it.
The rest of humanity is quite happy to explore this thing we call 'trust'. In means, for example, my lover can go down on me, or vice versa, without waking me up, and if i don't like it, I express that, verbally or otherwise. I don't wait until I'm satisfied, then when my lover ends the relationship, give the cops a quick call to ruin their lives.
Oh right, the cops would never act on my complaint; I'm male. But if I was a female with a male lover, I could do that; it's not like evidence is required now.
But Feminists want their rules to apply to everyone.
Wouldn't it be fairer to simply have feminist relationships, and non-feminist relationships? In the sane variety, we could carry on, having sex without your rules. Meanwhile, any male who enters your space could simply and humanely be shot in the head, thus saving time and paperwork.
5) If someone changes their mind - but doesn't make it clear - then they are responsible. Men do not have telepathy. Feminists might want to imprison men for not being supernaturally equipped, but sane people prefer to let humans obey the laws of physics.
6) "She said yes to a drink, not to sex"
So she had one drink and passed out? Impressive. Was it soft drink? Is she narcoleptic? I will agree that any feminist who is so feeble should never have sex, or interact with men in any way.
It's already illegal to screw someone who is unconscious due to drinking, and there's not a lot of guys who aren't aware of that. But that's not what the Feminists are after, is it? They want to claim that any woman who has touched the Devil's Brew can no longer make any decisions - unlike a man.
Really, Feminists think men are unaware of that. Everywhere in the non-feminist world, men will go up to women, throw them down and have their way, and go on, without any thought that might not be socially acceptable.
Of course, feminists re-define coercion on the fly, so they might well decide that saying "would you like to sleep with me" now counts - in the same way they defined cat-calling as anything from "hello" to "have a nice day" if spoken by a man to a women - when the man is considered unattractive by that woman, of course.
8) Alcohol is no excuse.. hmm, might want to tell your other feminists that. It's not our side that is claiming women are unable to consent if they have swallowed any booze.
9) Consent is beautiful? No, it's an ugly bag of pus, thanks to feminists.
10 ) "Love softly"? That's gibberish. A good summary of Feminism; something that sounds like it might mean something, but doesn't.
Consent may be withdrawn by any party at any time.
Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? In BDSM, that means a safe word or activity; three taps, for example, usually repeated like morse code.
"Recognizing the dynamic nature of sexual activity, individuals choosing to engage in sexual activity must evaluate consent in an ongoing manner and communicate clearly throughout all stages of sexual activity. "
How do you communicate clearly at all stages?
May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust?May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust?May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust?May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust?May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust? How many times can you say that?
dAnd of course, since the purpose of sex is to enter an irrational state (i.e. orgasm!), at some point you can either stop talking or stop feeling.
Of course the point is that everyone will break the rules - but then they can pick and choose who to punish. And from the experience with the courts, which group do you think will be most selected?
"Withdrawal of consent can be an expressed “no” or can be based on an outward demonstration that conveys that an individual is hesitant, confused, uncertain or is no longer a mutual participant. "
"Outward demonstration"? Well, that seems critical! A young man's life hinges on the 'outward demonstration'!
So is it defined? Of course not! That might mean anything at all; she might tense up because she's having an orgasm, or because she's now feeling uncomfortable - you, as someone without telepathy, just don't know.
So the only way to pass this test is never to take it; remain celibate.
And remember; if you do masturbate, as a male, you are likely to use porn instead of a vibrator like females do - and that means feminists can and will shame you and even criminalise you for doing so!
Date rape drugs are incredibly rare; mostly women get wasted then don't recall why they chose to bonk some dude.
"2. When you see a woman walking by herself, leave her alone."
Can I just leave feminists alone - and vice versa? Like, for the rest of my life? That would be great, thanks.
"3. If you pull over to help a woman whose car has broken down, remember not to rape her."
YOU JUST SAID TO LEAVE HER ALONE - DO YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN WRITING?
4. If you are in an elevator and a women gets in, don’t rape her.
HOW CAN I WHEN I'M NOT IN THE ELEVATOR - HAVE WE NOT AGREED ON THE LEAVING ALONE BIT?
Besides "elevator rape" is incredibly rare - it's a bloody stupid concept as you are likely to be either filmed and/or interrupted, and there's a bloody alarm right there.
Feminist panics about the frequency of this have no connection the facts.
" 5. When you encounter a woman who is asleep, the safest course of action is to not rape her."
We're doing this one again?
"6. Never creep into a woman’s home through an unlocked door or window, or spring out at her from between parked cars, or rape her."
Ok, Now I know you are just trolling me. Every time you contradict yourself, I'll just delete your lines.
The Director of Public Prosecutions said it was time for the legal system to move beyond the concept of “no means no”
Really? Despite the idea that adults are able to articulate yes or no, and this is reducing women to the status of children? Because it only casts women as victims here, and men as victimisers. It's very clear they want to prosecute men - lots of them! Perhaps they have a motive other than justice?
"Men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex"
How? Whereabouts is the bar? Do they need a written contract? Will a witness be required? A Justice of the Peace?
In no other area of the law would they be vague about the required method of obeying the law.
"Prove you're innocent!" is something we abandoned with witch-hunts and show-trials. It's very clear there's no way to prove you're innocent; once accused, the lynching can begin.
"Alison Saunders said rape victims should no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent to sex"
Note she never defines how drunk is too drunk. One glass of wine? We don't have that vagueness for motor vehicles or heavy machinery. Can there be any innocent reason for phrasing a law in such an inept manner? Or is it more likely to have been chosen in order to persecute men?
And, of course, she never addresses the case where two people drink equally then have sex - the logical paradox of having people simultaneously be rape victims and rapists never seems to occur to her.
Either she cheated through her exams and did a lot of favours to get her qualifications - or she is corrupt, and is knowingly passing corrupt legislation.
" “a suspect held a position of power over the potential victim - as a teacher, an employer, a doctor or a fellow gang member”"
So it's rape if you have sex with your boss? Even if you chased them, you can destroy them as your rapist? Even if they had recordings that was your plot - she has no problems with that?
And "a fellow gang member”??? A peer is.. in her warped mind ... a superior?
HOW DOES THAT EVEN WORK?
Of course, the subtext is " a MALE gang member with a FEMALE ”
Because women are weak and feeble, and even if they say yes, it secretly means no.
THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM A MALICIOUS WOMAN UNDER THESE LAWS.
Let's look at her definition of victimisation:
"The ability to consent to sex should also be questioned where the complainant has mental health problems"
MOST PEOPLE HAVE THOSE AT SOME TIME OR ANOTHER.
We do not describe such people as incapable of making decisions. If you sign a contract and were a bit depressed - you are still liable! You have to be very seriously ill for the court to regard you as incapacitated.
Yet she wants any woman to say "it doesn't matter that i was recorded shouting yes every 30 seconds; i secretly meant no because i saw a nasty message on twitter!"
The new guidance also covers domestic violence situations and those where “the complainant may be financially or otherwise dependent on their alleged rapist”.
Yep, if someone is financially dependent on YOU, YOU ARE RAPING THEM.
But wait! Maybe I'm misreading the gender bias here! Surely the law will be applied fairly?
"Around 85,000 women per year are victims of rape in the UK, of whom 90 per cent know the perpetrator. The most recent figures showed that just 15,670 women reported rapes to the police"
Ok, they just made up a number, because saying 85000 women were raped required omniscience - there's 15,670 reports, and a lot go unproven - so 1,070 convictions resulting from the 2,910 cases that got to court means 1,070 CONVICTIONS PROVEN, NOT 85000!
No mention of men being raped. Not an option in their minds. There's no chance they don't have in mind how this law is to be applied. Men are wicked - women are saints.
"The rape conference was designed partly to address the long-standing gulf between rape allegations and conviction"
Well yes - like in the Soviet Union, every accusation will automatically carry a conviction. It will simplify matters. Perhaps they'll provide weeping confessions on television, before they have them shot.
From https://imgur.com/juq7kVB Mary P. Koss thinks that it is "inappropriate" to consider men who have been raped by women as rape victims, because "their penetration experience is not similar to what women are reporting". She calls it "unwanted contact". (source)
The first quote comes from Detecting the Scope of Rape (1993, p. 206-207) and the second and third quotes comes from a radio interview from earlier this year.
" in support of ending sexual violence against women."
How will crossdressing accomplish this task, and why only against women*? Will women be doing anything to help male victims? Haha, only kidding, of course they won't. Feminism is HeForShe, never the other way around.
" a hope for a future where sexual violence will no longer exist in society."
Why not hope for a future where violence will no longer exist in society? Because that's insane. Because limiting such things through laws and police is the best solution we have - and it's worked pretty well. Violence is far lower, sexual and otherwise, than it used to be.
Crossdressing has nothing to do with it, and is instead propaganda claiming that women are the only victims, men the perpetrators of all evil, and that women need men to protect them and can't do things for themselves - ironically in direct contradiction to the feminist mantra that "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle".
"It takes a strong man to be a partner and ally to those who are the victims to sexual violence"
Who are invariably female, by their understanding. It's interesting that it's not ""It takes a strong person to be a partner and ally to those who are the victims to sexual violence"
because of course, if you have a vagina, you can forget about it; it's none of your concern. Let the men do all the work.
"(It takes) even a stronger one who has the courage and self-respect to call other men on their sexist and disrespectful behavior and intervene in potentially dangerous situations"
Firstly, again it's emphasised that only men have to do this, secondly it's painted as if only men were sexist (and that sexual violence has to do with sexism, when it's mostly opportunism by the amoral elements of society) and thirdly RESPECT HAS TO BE EARNED.
You do no merit respect automatically because you have a vagina any more than if you have a penis. If feminism was an egalitarian movement, this would be a no-brainer. The fact it's never considered is further proof that feminism is a deeply sexist movement.
"Real men ask permission"
Ah, the no true Scotsman fallacy, it must have been a billionth of a second since a feminist used that one last. Listen, whether men ask permission or not, they are still real men. They might be bad men or good men, depending on your understanding of morality BUT THEY ARE ALL REAL MEN.
And you don't need to verbalise with women any more than you do with men. If a woman touches up a man, and then man touches up the woman, and they have intercourse, by the Feminist PoV, he just RAPED her, because he didn't "ask permission".
Most people are completely happy with having sex without chatting throughout the process, and continually asking if you can continue is the biggest mood-killer i can imagine. Ok, next to my partner being Lena Dunham.
Feminists look at a couple who have been married for twenty years and happily enjoy each others bodies and decide "I MUST POLICE THEM".
He must be evaluated to see if he continually verbalises; she is a childlike waif who is incapable of saying "stop" when she needs to.
He, of course, is always ready and wanting for sex, so she never needs to ask him by their rules. "I think that many men and every man on this campus is all ready to give this much pain to make sure that women can have equal rights as men and enjoy this campus," Pashtun said.
Well, job done then. Name one right men have in the West that women don't.
Just one. Take your time.
Would you like to phone a friend?
Let's swap it. Imagine if Feminism WAS an egalitarian movement. One that cared to make sure women and men were treated equally. Yes, that is quite difficult, can i recommend a Bex and a lie-down afterwards - but just for a moment, imagine they actually walked the walk and not just talked the talk.
What would the women wear?
Combat boots.
Women cannot be conscripted in the West. In the United States, the difference is so substantial that a man does not even have suffrage unless he agrees to conscription. It's called Selective Service.
Now, count up all the Feminist organisations that want SS applied without sex-based rules.
I'll give you a hint: it's the same number as unicorns running for President in Uruguay in October.
*Why is it only straight women, anyway, do feminists imagine lesbian rape is a contradiction in terms? Well that's exactly the argument used by Mary P. Koss of the CDC to justify rape laws that granted immunity to most female rape crimes. And "The Vagina Monologues" explicitly claimed it was "Good Rape" when an adult woman molests a child. So yeah, Feminists erase it or even praise it when it's done by a woman. And when a man does it - all men did it, and all must be blamed.
The “1 in 4 Women will be sexually assaulted” myth:
“IF the one-in-four statistic is correct—it is sometimes modified to “one-in-five to one-in-four”—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely.”
This alleged “statistic” was culled from a survey of 3,000 college women in 1982, conducted by Ms. Magazine. These women were asked only three questions:
Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?
Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force to make you?
Have you had sexual acts when you didn’t want to because a man threatened to use some degree of physical force to make you?
because let’s not forget that women are just as capable of becoming rapists as men.
There is no rape culture. We do not live in a society that condones rape. Rape is considered to be one of the top criminal offenses. Literally no one supports it here in America or any developed Western country.
