NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/feminism/7519

Text File | 1993-01-23 | 7.9 KB | 188 lines

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!llyene!eddie!julie
From: [e-mail] (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: eddie.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:35:01 GMT
Lines: 175

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mr J S Graley) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Julie Kangas) writes:
>|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mr J S Graley) writes:
>|>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Julie Kangas) writes:
>|>|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mr J S Graley) writes:
>|>|>
>|>|>(1) Claim that cries of rape should always be believed, true or false.
>|>|>
>|>|>(2) Try to prevent false cries of rape, making true ones more believable.
>|>|
>|>|How about
>|>|(3) Treat all cases individually.  Follow 'innocent until proven
>|>|guilty'.  Don't assume all rape accusations are all false or
>|>|all true.  Prosecute *anyone* making false claims of any sort
>|>|for personal gain.
>|>
>|>I have taken your (3) as a premise. Thus its introduction into the list
>|>is pointless.
>|
>|Hardly.  I sure didn't see (3) in your words.
>
>Look at your (3) again. Courts always treat all cases individually. This is
>why we have juries. Innocent until proven guilty is also always the case,
>with the proviso that we cannot ever have an absoulte proof, mearly very
>good evidence. The whole dint of my original article was that some rape
>accusations are true, and others are false. And it is the law to prosocute
>people making false accusations.

I've known people who think it's bad but not criminal to rape
a passed out woman ('she deserved it').  Not long ago, some people
felt  a woman who dressed in tight or revealing clothes was thought
to be provoking men and asking for rape.  This is why I will not
agree with your (2) as it is written.  You may feel it derives
from (3) but I see it differently.  I sense a trap in (2).  How
do *you* define 'false' and 'true'?

>
>I feel you are trying to belittle my argument by adding a rather obvious
>contribution which I was never arguing with, and then trying to accuse me
>of not agreeing with them. You have no right to put words ito other people's
>mouths.
>
>|
>|I felt (1) was ridiculous and (2) too amorphous and vague to be
>|of any use.
>|
>
>I'm glad you find (1) ridiculous. Now go tell that to all the feminists who
>are actively supporting it. Sure, you don't support it yourself, but by not
>criticising it, you condone it.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Talk about putting words in people's mouth!!!

With your argument I could say you condone Hitler because I've never
seen you criticise him on the net!  Or that you condone child abuse
because you haven't posted a comdemnation of it within the week!

>
>As for (2), it is not amorphous or vague. If you insist that it is, I suggest
>you devise your own, more precise definition along the same lines, and say
>whether you support _that_.

I have devised my own statement.  You sound as if you believe (3).
What's the problem?

You also did not say in (2) (and I cannot respond to things you
know or think you've implied) how you cut down false accusations.
You say you support prosecution of false testimony.  That is not
stated in (2).

I had trouble as well with 'Try to cut down'.  How?  That's why
I insisted on stating by penalities.  Your statement could also
be read as making it harder for all women to accuse men, which
would also cut down on false accusations but also make it harder
for the truthful ones.

>
>|>
>|>DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT agree that fewer false accusations of rape will make
>|>the process of demonstrating a true one easier?
>|
>|How do you decide which accusations are false without a trial?  How
>|do you cut out the false accusations a priori?  Do you 'pre-judge'
>|rape accusations?  By whom?  Is there some list that you can
>|consult to say which are true allegations and which are false?
>
>All this is moot.
>Stop avoiding the question.

You are avoiding my questions.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
get the sense from your postings that you have a different
view of what is a 'false' accusation than I do.  That is why
I cannot answer your question until I know what you call
true and false.

>This is very immature. Why can't you just give an answer? Either you do
>believe this or you do not.

Why don't you give an answer?

I'll be happy to discuss what I consider to be true and false
accusations of rape.

>
>|In addition, there is the problem with people lying and with
>|current laws.  There are cases when a women lies about being
>|raped.  There are also cases, as I discussed with another poster,
>|when a drunk woman seduces a man who is later called a rapist.
>
>I think we'd better get the clear cut cases agreed upon before we go on to
>more contreversial matters, don't you?

I'm asking about defintions of 'true' and 'false'.  These more
controversial matters play heavily into what a person considers to
be false and true accusations of rape.

There are two types of "false" here.  The "false" when someone
is not assaulted but makes up a story claiming to be assaulted.
Then there is the "false" that results when someone is assaulted,
but it's one of these gray areas -- like being drunk.

>
>|Which case is "false?"  Currently, only the first case is
>|"false" in the legal sense.  The second case, while you and
>|I may consider it false, is not legally "false" under some state laws.
>|Also, until recently, in Utah a man could have sex with his
>|wife without her permission and it was not considered rape.
>|What is now considered rape had previously been "false."
>|So, how do you define "false?"  False according to legal
>|standards, or false according to yours?  Where in the spectrum
>|of sober/drunk, seducer/seduced do you draw the line of "false?"
>
>For the sake of argument, let's say false according to _your_ standards.

By my standards?

I'm all for *no* false accusations.  It would help out immenesely
in prosecuting the real criminals.

There.  Happy?

>
>|>
>|>This is a really important question, because the attitude you have shown in
>|>your posting does not seem to support this.
>|
>|Your post seems to indicate you feel it's possible to lower
>|false accusations before trials take place, instead of lowering
>|them by penalities for making false accusations and re-writing
>|laws.
>
>No. I think correct penalties for false accuations is part of the answer. I
>am concerned by how lightly women take the subject of false rape accusations,
>when they would obviously gain from there being fewer. So I wanted to see
>if you would clearly and unambiguously say that there is a real need to
>avoid false accusations. You have not done so. You have failed to break
>my stereotypical view of women as people who simply want the license to lock
>up men whenever it suits them.

I did not answer because I do not know your beliefs and definitions.
I think you should take a better look at what are considered false
accusations.  I felt the need to try to get a definition out of
you (After all, you tried to get one out of me).  Convince *me*
that you're not a stereotypical (in some women's view) man who
feels passed out or drunk women are fair game.

See?  It's not fun being blamed for some people's actions or being
asked to prove in minute detail (beyond saying "I'm against it")
that you don't believe what some radical elements believe.  And
when you do say "I'm against it", someone coming back saying they
don't believe you.

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else