Shoot the Wall (A.K.A. The Rant Thread)

[besleybean]

No to capital punishment, but I demand the right to vote for my head of state.

[Artemis]

Snow, ugh.  Stay awaaaaaaaaay.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Don't be silly -- it never snows in September.

[Artemis]

 

[Artemis]

Guess we're not getting an autumn this year.  It went straight from summer to winter, just like last year.  It was in the 90's two weeks ago.  Skipped over my favorite temp range again, the 60's.  Looking like it's gonna be cold for the foreseeable future.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

We've been fluctuating between hot and cool, with very little warm.  This past spring was equally chaotic, with a balmy March and major snow in April -- after that rollercoaster ride, the peonies scarcely bloomed, and a lot of fruit crops have been skimpy.

But what else is new?  We hardly ever have a "normal" spring or fall here.

[Artemis]

Yeah, same here with last spring too; we went straight from winter to summer, and basically skipped spring.  It's just a bummer, because autumn is my favorite and we didn't really get one last year (or the year before), and then the winter was so long, with the cold starting about the same time as now in September and then lasting all the way through April, until summer suddenly hit in full force.  I just miss my autumns and springs.

*Sigh*.

 

[HerlockSholmes]

I thought that I’d get some viewpoints here on a bid news item at the moment. It’s the Brett Kavanagh ‘thing.’

Firstly, I barely follow U.K. politics these days and so my knowledge of USA politics and related issues are close to zero. Secondly, I’d like to hear all opinions of course but especially as there are USA posters here and even more especially because there are female posters.

Are we heading toward potentially dangerous territory here? We’ve had similar dilemma’s here too. It should go without saying that rape is a horrible crime for which the perpetrator should feel the full weight of the law. The terrible problem is that it’s often so hellishly difficult to prove and so it often comes down to one persons word against another. Especially when years have passed.

I haven’t followed this particular story closely I’m afraid but there appears to be a ‘movement’ which exist here too that are calling for a reduced requirement of evidence. Pretty much a case of an accusation is enough to convict. Much as we all want rapists convicted and punished we surely can’t advance toward a time when we say “we’ll lessen the requirements for proof. We will no doubt convict more genuine rapists but a few innocent men might get convicted too but....hey, you can’t win them all?” No one should want this surely?

id be interested to hear views👍

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hear, hear! 

And that's from a first-generation feminist.

I have no idea who is telling the truth here, and at this late date I don't see how anybody can tell -- plus the accusers have a clear political motive.

[Van Buren Supernova]

5 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

I thought that I’d get some viewpoints here on a bid news item at the moment. It’s the Brett Kavanagh ‘thing.’

Firstly, I barely follow U.K. politics these days and so my knowledge of USA politics and related issues are close to zero. Secondly, I’d like to hear all opinions of course but especially as there are USA posters here and even more especially because there are female posters.

Are we heading toward potentially dangerous territory here? We’ve had similar dilemma’s here too. It should go without saying that rape is a horrible crime for which the perpetrator should feel the full weight of the law. The terrible problem is that it’s often so hellishly difficult to prove and so it often comes down to one persons word against another. Especially when years have passed.

I haven’t followed this particular story closely I’m afraid but there appears to be a ‘movement’ which exist here too that are calling for a reduced requirement of evidence. Pretty much a case of an accusation is enough to convict. Much as we all want rapists convicted and punished we surely can’t advance toward a time when we say “we’ll lessen the requirements for proof. We will no doubt convict more genuine rapists but a few innocent men might get convicted too but....hey, you can’t win them all?” No one should want this surely?

id be interested to hear views👍

I'm not American but you said I can say something.

I have the same worry with what you have, but at the same time, I sort of understand the POV of the movement of calling for a reduced requirement of evidence.

Two acquaintances of mine, both males, different time, different country, different place, culture and people, had been accused of doing something inappropriate to their co-worker, both in work setting, secluded area (but that is the nature of their workplace).

The first one was not proven, but he was discharged dishonorably, lost his job, reputation ruined and probably cost him future jobs as well. Many of my colleagues, who had known him for years (not so for me) didn't believe that he would do such a thing, and separately, many thought that the accuser as someone who was capable of making up story for her benefit from how she conducted herself or how she viewed things in daily life. However, there was no witness, it's unfortunate that they were alone at that time during odd hour in secluded workplace (odd hour is also not something uncommon for their profession), so it's his words against hers, and eventhough he was not charged officially, his life was ruined.

The second one was slightly weirder. Some circumstance, but there were witness, that gave different account that what the supposedly victim's account. According to the witness, the accused and victim were doing something inappropriate in similar workplace setting and the victim looked distressed and crying, which was not was the victim said. It was found out that these two had relationship history in the past, and on more bizarre twist, some of the witness were not proven to be actually there except on their own words when they claimed that they witnessed the incident (but no proper investigation was conducted for the whole case) These people were the guy's subordinate who were unhappy with him, but there were slight truth in their testimonial that made the whole thing questionable, and none of them bulged in their testimonies. Nevertheless, the accused still lost his reputation and job. And I remember that the 'victim' actually came over privately and cried her eyes out when he left, saying she had ruined his life and  begging him not to go (his office was next to mine), which made me think that was not the behavior of someone that was attacked (?). I had known this guy for a while, and there was nothing in him that raised any alarm to me, he was kind, patience and professional.

 

So yah, I think it does happen. Innocents get accused. Things get complicated when it's her words, his words and their words. Not only people can fake accuse someone, it's proven that people can ruin business easily through fake reviews, cyber bullying etc etc. Things are always taken for granted by anyone with shaky morality that don't care about other human beings.

However, I would also consider the other POV as something very reasonable in certain circumstances. Well, it is very surprising to me, on top of what I've already suspect, about how many cases, incidents and harassment that women face all their life, everywhere, first world, third world country, rich and poor, attractive or average, young and old, and the most intriguing but infuriating to me is, actually, how clueless most men are, especially for those 'lighter' harassment case: I don't know it's not okay, I'm not aware that it hurts. I thought you like it. And to be honest, women had been trained to just move on, ignore or not pursuing or even given up educating men on those, because sometimes it wouldn't be worth it, it wouldn't be heard or thought that is how things is.

So it's not hard for me to imagine when someone is sexually assaulted they wouldn't focus on preserving evidence or would normally be in a circumstances where evidences could be easily found or the victims find a way to get help. I believe study proves that more rape victims know their attackers, and mostly the deeds are done in secluded places, sometime victims are young and clueless about how to manage the situation or way too traumatized to remember details, or even come forward especially if the attackers are someone with good social standing, status, wealth, and power to shut you up and retaliate. Especially when the victims don't have family member or friends they can turn into, or in worst case (that is not uncommon) the family members are the ones to advice you not to make a big deal into it, or they are the attackers. Some victims who are brave enough to report would also face with the same thing (asked to shut up by authority and others) like the case of suicide of an university students. Some rapes done by people they are told to trust; religious representation, someone you should respect, teachers etc etc. It's not rare that victims would start blaming themselves.

So, on the wider and longer term,  I would say for me, while I hope necessary cautions are being taken on convicting rapists as much as possible, all this consideration about the victim conditions, situations and everything else are to be weighed and considered seriously when evidences are not sufficient. I also think that while there are negative consequences about #MeToo, I personally hoping for a better future when men know better about how they should/shouldn't treat women, and that those victims would finally get justice and those men who had been walking freely would be finally put into jail. Something that is very alarming to me, it seems that the one that are exposed and proven are repeated offenders, and that means they have no remorse whatsoever about the things that they done to one. 

Having said that though, I hope people are much more educated and thinking clearly about taking something, anything and processing them first before taking their stand blindly, like two of you, at the very least we are aware that everything can be manipulated and steered to certain direction so everyone has to remain open-minded and not trusting blindly, be objective, like we should with everything else in life.

But then again, do they listeeennn?

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree with you that education is needed, VBS.  I suspect in a lot of what the woman consider rape or near-rape cases, the man is thinking she really enjoyed it.  I don't think we speak up enough at the time (as in hey stop doing that!), which would be the best form of education.

However, there seems to be a growing assumption that if a woman says she was raped or sexually assaulted, then the man is automatically guilty, which is (as your examples imply) simply bullshit.  That attitude isn't feminism, it's politics.

This may simply be another area where major improvement will have to wait for the next generation to be born.

[Artemis]

Aw geez, I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought this up.  I normally wouldn't comment on something like this, but you asked so nicely, so here is my view.  This is coming from a feminist as well, and a victim of sexual assault who wasn't believed, and whose perpetrators got away with it scot-free:

I don't think there is enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh.  It's simply been too long, and I think convicting him on so little would be treading very dangerous ground.  I'm not comfortable with it, and I don't think it's right.  It's already difficult to convict rapists, which is very unfortunate; it makes me sick, honestly.  But there's not nearly enough here to even start to paint a clear picture.  If the alleged assault had happened more recently it might be different, we'll never know.  But it's just been too long now.  What's more, the psychologist in me knows that traumatic memory recovery via hypnosis, especially after so much time has passed, is extremely unreliable.  Too unreliable, in my opinion, to be wielded properly in a court of law.  The mind is pliable and powerful enough to use associations to build memories of things that never really happened, or didn't happen the way we remember them.  Even our regular memories can do this, altering over time; but traumatic memories that were blocked and later resurfaced are the most susceptible, and the most suspect.  Ford may actually be saying what she believes to be true, but still be wrong.  Maybe nothing happened, or maybe she was assaulted, but it wasn't by Kavanaugh, or maybe it happened exactly as she claims.  Bottom line is, we can't know beyond a reasonable doubt.

I also agree with Carol, there is an obvious political angle here.  I couldn't say whether Ford herself is operating under that agenda, but others are certainly attempting to use it to their advantage, and I'm not okay with that.  This isn't a game.

On the flip side, I can't help but feel frustrated hearing some people use character testimonies as if they automatically exonerate him, like "All his buddies think he's a stand-up guy, and his high school girlfriend said he was a gentleman with her, so he couldn't possibly have done this!"  I know from very personal experience that people get away with horrible things by being otherwise "upstanding citizens".  I don't mean that I think Kavanaugh is guilty, I just hate that argument.

However, as there's not much else to go on in this case, it's also hard to blame them for grasping at whatever they can.

And to address the last part of your query, I most definitely would not be in favor of letting an accusation be enough to convict.  Having been falsely accused of things myself, that is a world I would be terrified to live in.  Anyone who didn't like me for whatever reason they imagined could ruin me or take away my freedom with a few words.  I am solidly a proponent of "innocent until proven guilty".

 

[Pseudonym]

It's a tough one. I don't know enough about this case, I've only been following it on my periphery, but in general people (men) who are accused in the media do seem to be automatically deemed guilty in the court of public opinion, which is I agree is dangerous. But then so many women report things that have happened and they are either not believed or there's not enough evidence to convict. Definitely a tough one.

One thing I thought was a bit ridiculous, as I said I don't know about it in detail so maybe I've got this wrong, but when I looked at the other accusers against Kavanagh one of them was saying he was drunk at a uni party and exposed himself to her... I've had people do that in a uni party setting and just laughed it off. Then I read more and it said he'd 'thrust his penis into her face.' Which I thought, yea, not cool, but it's hardly on par with rape. 

Btw, as an aside, the fact there's a statute of limitations on rape in the US blows my mind. I don't understand how the Kavanagh case plays into that - is it not a criminal case and it's more about his character? Is it just within the limitation?

A case that was very interesting and got a lot of people talking was the attempted character assassination of Aziz Ansari - did any of you follow that? There was a long story by a woman he went on a date with who implied she'd been traumatised and that he'd attacked her. But when you read the account, in her own words, it made no sense. It was full of ridiculous details of how he'd 'mistreated' her by...  ordering the wrong type of wine without asking her opinion  - and other stupid minor things. When he asked at the end of the date if she wanted to come up to his apartment, pretty clear what he's asking, everyone knows that 'do you want to come up for coffee' doesn't mean coffee... she agreed, although she didn't want to. Something else that was supposedly his fault. When they were in his flat he tried to initiate oral sex and she was 'thinking she wanted him to stop' but at no point actually told him. She 'thought at him' and expected him to somehow become psychic and know. The moment she actually verbally said she wasn't into it, he immediately stopped. As soon as she said she wanted to leave, he called her a taxi. Again, this is all from an article in her own words. He hadn't known there was an issue until he suddenly saw his name splashed across the paper as a supposed sex-attacker. The whole account was just the description of a bad date where she expected him to somehow be psychic. I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other on Aziz Ansari, but that account was ridiculous - I know rape doesn't always involve screaming and overt physical (as opposed to sexual) violence, but anyone reading that account would think WTF did he do wrong other that not be able to read your mind?!

TBH, I'm more naturally inclined to believe and side with the woman. And if there are multiple accusations against the same man I'm definitely more likely to think he's guilty. But then I think how awful it must be if you haven't done anything and your entire life is destroyed by an untrue accusation. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

8 hours ago, Pseudonym said:

TBH, I'm more naturally inclined to believe and side with the woman. And if there are multiple accusations against the same man I'm definitely more likely to think he's guilty. But ....

In cases like this, I'm never sure whether a} the accusers were scared to come forward until one brave woman spoke up, or b} it's a carefully orchestrated character assassination.  When there's no other evidence, then in all fairness I'd have to default to b}.

Ive just been catching up on the Cosby case, reading the women's own accounts of what happened, and as you say with the Aziz case (which I'm not familiar with), it seems clear to me that they were naive and/or irresponsible.

Even from Cosby's own testimony, he's clearly a slimeball, druggung women and cheating on his wife at every opportunity.  BUT as far as I've read, none of them say he fooled them into taking the drug (e.g., by spiking their drink), he merely offered it to them   If a man I was having a nice chat with said "here are some pills to help you relax" and I was fool enough to actually swallow them (!), I'd be blaming myself next morning, not him.

[J.P.]

What really made my jaw drop was this:

Quote

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham insisted over the weekend that he would vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh even if an FBI investigation found evidence that he may have sexually assaulted one or more women.

Sadly I have only a link to Twitter, the article is beyond paywall.

 

[Pseudonym]

He brings shame on the name Lindsey. (Guess my name, lol!)

[Carol the Dabbler]

Graham insisted over the weekend that he would vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh even if an FBI investigation found evidence that he may have sexually assaulted one or more women.

That's not an actual quote from Graham, so I have no idea what he really said.  But even in that paraphrase, I think the key word is "may."  Even if the FBI did agree to investigate a decades-old rape accusation, I can't imagine they'd come up with anything even remotely resembling solid evidence, at best just indications that something "may" have happened.

I would be more likely to criticize Graham for saying he's made up his mind before the hearing is complete -- but then I suspect just about all the senators made up their minds long ago, based on the judge's philosophical record.

 

[HerlockSholmes]

Nothing more than I expected. Reasonable, intelligent and fair-minded responses. Thanks all👍

‘It’s one of the great tragedies of life - the difficulty in proving rape. Who do we believe? A guilty person can appear honest and produce a multitude of respectable character witnesses. Whereas an honest person might not come across well. In short - they don’t convince.

Sad to say, I think the best that we can hope for (apart from an infallible lie-detector) is a culture change.  That we move away from the “I only put my hand up her skirt” excuse. That we ( by this I mean men) all understand that the arbiter of what is acceptable or unacceptable is the woman that says ‘no.’ 

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, HerlockSholmes said:

Sad to say, I think the best that we can hope for (apart from an infallible lie-detector) is a culture change.  That we move away from the “I only put my hand up her skirt” excuse. That we ( by this I mean men) all understand that the arbiter of what is acceptable or unacceptable is the woman that says ‘no.’ 

That sort of attitude change is indeed happening, I think, and that's great. Of course that's only changing the software -- I fear that we'll be stuck running it on the old hardware for the foreseeable future.

One other change that should also help is that women are becoming more willing to report such incidents immediately, when forensic evidence may still be obtainable. (Though those forensic efforts may sometimes be thwarted by another otherwise-laudible trend, use of condoms.)

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, HerlockSholmes said:

Reasonable, intelligent and fair-minded responses. 

Thank you.  But lest the forum's policies be misunderstood, let me point out that polite disagreement is more than welcome here.  We've had some really interesting discussions started by dissenters.

[Carol the Dabbler]

15 hours ago, Pseudonym said:

... the fact there's a statute of limitations on rape in the US blows my mind. I don't understand how the Kavanagh case plays into that - is it not a criminal case and it's more about his character? Is it just within the limitation?

The majority of states have a statute of limitations on at least some degrees of rape. I believe this alleged attempted rape occurred in Maryland, which currently has no time limit on prosecution of such crimes; however if there was such a limit at the time, and if that limit expired before it was abolished, then the case would not be prosecutable in a court of law.

However (as I believe you are saying) the Senate hearing is not a court of law, so none of the above applies.

[Van Buren Supernova]

8 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

In cases like this, I'm never sure whether a} the accusers were scared to come forward until one brave woman spoke up, or b} it's a carefully orchestrated character assassination.  When there's no other evidence, then in all fairness I'd have to default to b}

While I agree with you that effort to obtain concrete evidence must be difficult, I still hope they could try to collect as many information as possible. If someone pointed a gun to my head, I wouldn't know which one to choose fairly, but if I had to rely on gut feeling and gut feeling alone, I would probably believe on (a) based on the consideration that these women seem to have nothing to gain, in fact they have everything to lose, and as in my earlier post, I would understand why they only come forward NOW. I also don't rule out possibility that counter politic and character assassination by another side is or will be attempted. And the gloomiest outcome of all these would be (the women are speaking the truth) but they failed to be proven so and case is turned against them while they have been recognized publicly and the perpetrator walk free. I can't imagine how this would impact thousands of others who face the same dilemma.

So again, I hope the investigation to be carried out thoroughly. House parties were being mentioned, could they track other possible witnesses, or even character witnesses of both sides. I'm quite sure that regardless how nice and outstanding person you appear to be in your public persona, there would be few people who know the truth or had witnessed something odd. And since there are three accusers, there should be quite enough leads to investigate.

 

8 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Ive just been catching up on the Cosby case, reading the women's own accounts of what happened, and as you say with the Aziz case (which I'm not familiar with), it seems clear to me that they were naive and/or irresponsible.

Even from Cosby's own testimony, he's clearly a slimeball, druggung women and cheating on his wife at every opportunity.  BUT as far as I've read, none of them say he fooled them into taking the drug (e.g., by spiking their drink), he merely offered it to them   If a man I was having a nice chat with said "here are some pills to help you relax" and I was fool enough to actually swallow them (!), I'd be blaming myself next morning, not him.

I have to disagree with you here.

It has to do with how you trust someone, and I can picture these women trusting him because of his charisma (?), his father figure, his social status, as a friend, a trusted acquaintance and his 'mentor' status. It's not much difference probably with someone trusting another's advice about a health product, something for your anxiety, something that is good for you (although I would agree that this is naive, but the most powerful tool of advertisement is word-of-mouth from someone you trust) and believing them doesn't mean you are to blame, especially  when the other person indeed has the intention to harm you. I think it is very wrong to say that one should blame herself if she thought taking his pill to help her relax would mean she accepts that he would sexually assault her while she was unconscious or couldn't fight back. 

It's not the same, but similar of blaming rape victims for dressing suggestively. While I think some women are indeed idiot to do so in places that are not appropriate and dangerous, don't pay attention or respect culture and social norm if it's foreign places (Oh there are tons and tons of those!) I also think that it is not the right 'excuse' to rape or sexually assault or harass someone.

[Van Buren Supernova]

8 hours ago, J.P. said:

Lindsey Graham insisted over the weekend that he would vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh even if an FBI investigation found evidence that he may have.....

 

7 hours ago, Pseudonym said:

He brings shame on the name Lindsey. (Guess my name, lol!)

 

Graham??

(You don't look like a Greg!)

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

... these women seem to have nothing to gain, in fact they have everything to lose....

I'm pretty sure they do feel they have something to gain.  Regardless of whether they're telling the truth or not, they almost certainly came forward at this particular time because they are vehemently opposed to Kavanaugh's confirmation, either because he did assault them or for other, presumably philosophical and/or political, reasons.  In either case, they're willing to risk their own reputations in order to take him down -- and that's what they hope to gain.

[Carol the Dabbler]

1 hour ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

I hope the investigation to be carried out thoroughly. House parties were being mentioned, could they track other possible witnesses, or even character witnesses of both sides.

By the main accuser's own account, there were no witnesses other than the boy she claims was Kavanaugh's accomplice, and he wouldn't dare corroborate her story for fear of implicating himself.

Character witnesses are of limited use.  If they say this is a fine upstanding person, that doesn't prove that they never do anything wrong.  And if they say they're a horrible, untrustworthy person, that doesn't prove that they've ever tried to rape someone.

And of course, again by the accuser's own account, there never was any forensic evidence.  So I can't see any good reason for an investigation.  But maybe they'll surprise me.