Protecting victims of false rape allegations

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
Except for the little tiny detail about not having been born yet.

Then how is your opinion relevent to what conservatives thought thirty or twenty years ago?

I bet this could apply to many people on these boards. Moreover, I'd bet the VAST MAJORITY of the conservatives on these boards were and are in favor of rape being a crime.

This is because in the invtervening thirty years, conservatives have moderated their views. Just like in the 1950s, most conservatives were opposed to civil rights, but today would not argue that Black people shouldn't have the right to vote or use public facilities, or do you think those Southern Democrats were liberals?

Again, you lack historical perpective. You look at what conservatives say today, and assume that it what they have always said. That is one things that has always been true of conservatives, they refuse to acknowldge that they've changed.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by monkspider
I have to agree Che, not to boil your blood or anything, but supporting equality for women /= being a feminist. Why not just support equality for all with socialism? Feminism is superfluous and potentially bad.

There are a few slogans from the 70s and 80s that might be appriopriate here.

feminism: the radical notion that women are human beings

feminism: the radical idea that women are not doormats.

The fundimental position of feminism is that women are the equal of men. This has been one of their greatest successes. Outside of fundimentalist religions, no one in the U.S. believes that women are inferior anymore.

It's all fine and well to say that and believe that's the way things should be. Still, women by and large still tend to get the short end of the stick. There are a number of reasons for this, and there are also counter trends in education.

While socialism does, theoretically, support the equality of all, the reality is we have fallen short of the mark, within our parties, in those countries where socialists of whatever stripe have come to power, and among our individual socialists. For these reasons, many feminists do not trust socialists.

Just sit on the back of the bus and let socialism take care of you little lady. No, it doesn't work like that. You only win people over by taking their concerns seriously, not by dismissing them. Ideas aren't everything. History, the real lived lives of people, is what is paramount. If the real lived lives of women is that socialists have acted like pigs in the past, telling them feminism is harmful is going to win you no friends except among conservatives.

If your ideas don't match or at least explain, history, your ideas are wrong. This is why both the younger conservatives and younger socialists alike in this thread have been claiming that feminism is something different than it really is and that certain ideas aren't feminism. Because they have no historical memory.

Finally, you and yavoon can call yourselfs socialists all you want, but if you do not make a serious attempt to understand feminism, you will be doing socialism no favors.

[Velociryx]

Hmmm....I must be an anomoly, because I support equality for women and certainly do not consider myself a "feminist" (any more than I would consider myself a "masculinist")

-=Vel=-

[Pekka]

Well I think this should be a case of throwing the woman in jail. Hard punishment, it's a hard crime. If it goes through the innocent man has to go to jail, spend there what ever he has to, and come back with a criminal record of a rapist, his future is pretty messed up too.
She does not only steal few years of his life, she steals the future as well.

Women who are raped are emotionally scarred forever, so rape is a serious thing. But so are these guys too, forever scarred for being labeled as a rapist for the rest of their lives when they didn't do it. Where is this person going to find work? No, he's then ex-inmate and a rapist. People don't forget these things. If he's from small society.. he has to move.

So giving this false accusation is not only bad, it's evil and should be dealt with severe punishment. Also the mans name must be cleared with as big of media etc attention as the case got. And you can't clear a mans name from that, you're still labeled and there are some buttholes thinking you're a rapist.

So, in case the accuser gets caught in lying and doing this crime, throw that ass in jail. If woman accuses a man, and man is not convicted for other reasons, then woman should not be punished because she wasn't necessarily lying. But if she gets caught from setting the whole thing up... no mercy.

[Solly]

Chegitz, as previously stated, the feminist argument is superfluous. Just say you support equality for all.

Right, what else do you need?

[Kuciwalker]

Then how is your opinion relevent to what conservatives thought thirty or twenty years ago?

It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that you are blatantly slandering me and 95% of the people on these boards (anyone who doesn't call themself a feminist). You group a diverse group of people into a bunch of faceless "evil people". I find it extremely offensive to be accused of what you are saying (anti-women, etc.).

This is because in the invtervening thirty years, conservatives have moderated their views. Just like in the 1950s, most conservatives were opposed to civil rights, but today would not argue that Black people shouldn't have the right to vote or use public facilities, or do you think those Southern Democrats were liberals?

How do you know that most conservatives were opposed to civil rights? You are generalizing again. You are most likely blaming an entire group on the actions of a few radicals.

Now, re: closed trials:

Come to think of it, don't defendents already have this right? Isn't the right to an open trial that of the defendent? So the defendent can choose not to exercise that right, correct? I have no idea if this is true, could someone who knows more about that explain?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Hmmm....I must be an anomoly, because I support equality for women and certainly do not consider myself a "feminist" (any more than I would consider myself a "masculinist")

-=Vel=-

Well, I guess you've learned something new about yourself!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

Then how is your opinion relevent to what conservatives thought thirty or twenty years ago?

you are blatantly slandering me and 95% of the people on these boards (anyone who doesn't call themself a feminist).

Nope, I have not. The vast majority of conservatives opposed, and continue to oppose feminism (even if they have been won over to the core idea). The reason why the ERA didn't pass was because of the opposition of who? That's right, conservatives. What you are trying to do is say that conservativism in 2003 = conservatism in 1976. It ain't the same thing.

Wanna know something else, in 1789, conservatives believed that the US should be a monarchy and that no one should have the right to vote. If conservatives had had their way, we'd have an inherited head of state . . . . okay, so you guys won that one.

Is this making any sense to you? Nixon argued for universal health care and a guaranteed minimum standard of living for all Americans. Would any Republican argue that today? Can you get it through your skull that conservatism has changed, but that if conservatives had had their way, nothing would have changed! That's why it's called conservatism. It's ideologically opposed to change.

As for saying those who don't call themselves feminists are opposed to equal rights for women . . . well, that's your call. Those who support equal rights are feminists. If you support equal rights, you support feminism, whether you want to or not, whether you call yourself a feminist or not. Because that's what feminism is about: equal rights for women.

Quote:

This is because in the invtervening thirty years, conservatives have moderated their views. Just like in the 1950s, most conservatives were opposed to civil rights, but today would not argue that Black people shouldn't have the right to vote or use public facilities, or do you think those Southern Democrats were liberals?

How do you know that most conservatives were opposed to civil rights? You are generalizing again. You are most likely blaming an entire group on the actions of a few radicals.

It's a matter of historical record. You may want to wish it didn't happen, but it did. As anyone who lived through that period can tell you.

[Kuciwalker]

Even if most conservatives believed that, does that mean they're wrong now? You're argument falls under ad hominem.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
You're argument falls under ad hominem.

That is true, and I probably would have gone back and removed it because it didn't prove anything. Just because conservatives were wrong in the past doesn't mean they were wrong today. I even sat asking myself what point that statement had served.

But then you had to go and start a fight about how conservatives would never . . . which was blatent historical revisionism (another thing which hasn't changed about conservatives).

[Kuciwalker]

You would have gone back and removed it... but then you decided to keep arguing it instead. Hmmm.

I didn't say "conservatives would never....", I said the actions were most likely those of radicals.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
You would have gone back and removed it... but then you decided to keep arguing it instead. Hmmm.

I didn't say "conservatives would never....", I said the actions were most likely those of radicals.

No, I didn't keep arguing it. We were arguing something different. What I wrote was that it wasn't relevent.
It was wrong for the argument. It wasn't factually incorrect, however.

Once you made an issue of it and tried to act as if it wasn't true, it became an issue. At that point if I had gone back and removed it, it would have been as if I was conceding your point, which I don't, because I'm right.

By the way, there's no such thing as a radical conservative. It's an oxymoron. Radicals are, by definition, leftists. What you mean is militant or extremist. Typically such people are refered to as reactionaries.

So, while people like Phyllis Schlafly and her Eagle Forum might have opposed the ERA, they make up such a tiny amount of the conservative movement that they couldn't be responsible for its defeat alone. It was always the right that opposed feminism politically.

It was always the right that opposed the changing views of the victims and survivors of rape and what constituted rape. If conservatives had won the debate and the political fights, husbands would still be able to rape their wives with impunity, women who went back to the guys room would have no legal defense, and prostitutes would still be fair game.

[chequita guevara]

Let's try this another way. Who were the great conservative leaders opposing Jim Crow? Who were the great conservative leaders who said women had a right to a job with equal pay? Who were the great conservative leaders who said that women who claimed to be raped were treated abominably by society? Who were the great conservative leaders who said that date rape was wrong?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker Except for the little tiny detail about not having been born yet.

Then how is your opinion relevent to what conservatives thought thirty or twenty years ago?

Quote:

I bet this could apply to many people on these boards. Moreover, I'd bet the VAST MAJORITY of the conservatives on these boards were and are in favor of rape being a crime.

This is because in the invtervening thirty years, conservatives have moderated their views. Just like in the 1950s, most conservatives were opposed to civil rights, but today would not argue that Black people shouldn't have the right to vote or use public facilities, or do you think those Southern Democrats were liberals?

Again, you lack historical perpective. You look at what conservatives say today, and assume that it what they have always said. That is one things that has always been true of conservatives, they refuse to acknowldge that they've changed.

wow. umm ppl call themselves conservative because of the values of the party TODAY. its utterly amazing that u think the conservative party is like "man I wish we could still sell blacks as slaves, but those damn liberals are too strong now." I mean holy crap.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by yavoon
wow. umm ppl call themselves conservative because of the values of the party TODAY. its utterly amazing that u think the conservative party is like "man I wish we could still sell blacks as slaves, but those damn liberals are too strong now." I mean holy crap.

I'm just flabbergasted that you could read those two paragraphs you quoted and then attribute the exact opposite meaning to them.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I'm just flabbergasted that you could read those two paragraphs you quoted and then attribute the exact opposite meaning to them.

u sure love ur claiming. it must be fun.

[chequita guevara]

Damnit, I mistook yavoon for veyasen.

[yavoon]

wow v's and y's. good times

[Shi Huangdi]

Abe Lincoln was a conservative. Pro-Industrialist Chrisitian.

Plenty of nasty people were communists as well. Stalin, Mao, etc. Plenty of bad too be found among both sides

I think, chegitz, that among atheists it is not only Christian sexual morals that go. It appears often times Christian Charity suffers as well, as evidenced here, as well as on the Storm Thurmond thread where you said he should be in Hell. I wonder how often love and forgiveness go down the toilet along with Chastity. I will pray for you.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Abe Lincoln was a conservative. Pro-Industrialist Chrisitian.

For his time, Lincoln was rather liberal. Heck, some of the stuff he wrote was pretty darn radical. Even Karl Marx wrote highly of him.

Plenty of nasty people were communists as well. Stalin, Mao, etc. Plenty of bad too be found among both sides

True.

I think, chegitz, that among atheists it is not only Christian sexual morals that go. It appears often times Christian Charity suffers as well, as evidenced here, as well as on the Storm Thurmond thread where you said he should be in Hell. I wonder how often love and forgiveness go down the toilet along with Chastity. I will pray for you.

You do that. I'll reserve my charity for those who aren't monsters.

[Shi Huangdi]

Sometimes monsters are those who need Charity most.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Plenty of nasty people were communists as well. Stalin, Mao, etc. Plenty of bad too be found among both sides

True.

Let's try this another way. Who were the great conservative leaders opposing Jim Crow? Who were the great conservative leaders who said women had a right to a job with equal pay? Who were the great conservative leaders who said that women who claimed to be raped were treated abominably by society? Who were the great conservative leaders who said that date rape was wrong?

Well, we can all see how much better Great Liberal Leaders are now, can't we?

[Shi Huangdi]

Here is another article on the topic from Fox News:

The Kobe Bryant (search) case is fueling a rather vicious debate over rape shield laws (search) and mainstream media policies that conceal the identities of rape victims.





The main argument being made by opponents: If his name can be dragged through the mud before his guilt or innocent has been proven, why shouldn’t his accuser's be?

One of the more curious arguments being made on behalf of outing the victim is that concealing her identity is preventing Kobe from defending himself. In the interests of fairness and justice, the talking heads have argued, "we" should be able to evaluate her credibility and subject her to the same scrutiny as Kobe.

But exactly how does "our" right to know promote fair justice for Kobe? Kobe Bryant and his lawyers (as well as everyone else legitimately involved in the case) know the identity of his accuser, who he will face openly in court. The information being kept from the public is not being kept from the defense team, who can and will investigate her, interview her friends, question her credibility, mental state, drug history and whatever else.

Opponents of rape shield laws also argue that victims of other crimes are publicly identified, and that all crime victims make a choice to endure the always painful and difficult experience of the legal process when reporting the crime. Advocates argue that other crimes don’t carry the stigma of rape, and that identifying these victims would stop many women from reporting rapes (search) and sexual assaults.

Rape is different from other crimes. Though society as a whole has made tremendous progress in understanding the crime of rape, the pathology of rapists and the unique trauma of rape victims, many people still cling to ignorant notions about rape, and many victims are still forced to suffer enormous shame and blame. Rape is still the only crime where the victim is often considered to bear some responsibility in the crime committed against her.

When a convenience store is the target of a stick-up, the robber doesn’t get a pass because the store is open in the middle of the night, located in a bad neighborhood, is known to have a certain amount of cash on hand, or is tempting thieves by having its goods displayed in the window.

When a home is burglarized, the owner’s history of leaving his doors unlocked, or failure to have an alarm, or choice to live in an expensive neighborhood that flaunts the wealth inside, does not figure into the defense.

When a tourist is mugged, the defense doesn’t usually argue that the victim asked for it by visiting a city he was unfamiliar with, or carrying her pocketbook in plain sight, or getting off the subway at the wrong stop.

The above scenarios seem absurd, and if ever attempted, would invite outrage. In fact, last summer, when the defense team for kidnapper and pedophile David Westerfield (search) — who sexually abused and murdered young Danielle Van Damm (search) after snatching her out of her bedroom in her San Diego home — tried to blame her parents’ sexually open lifestyle for the crime, the backlash was swift and severe.

Rape victims, particularly those accusing someone of date or acquaintance rape, face a very different situation. Just look at what has happened to Bryant’s accuser since her name was publicized on the Internet, some radio shows and tabloid newspapers. The “outers” couldn’t even get her identity right, instead posting the picture of an innocent young woman with no involvement in the case.

Both this woman, and the actual accuser, have been vulgarly reviled in chat rooms and web sites all over the Internet. The address and the phone number of the real accuser has been made public, subjecting her to harassment, even death threats, forcing her to flee her home and imprisoning her indoors. This does not happen to people whose names are in the paper because their houses have been robbed or their cars stolen.

Even in a town as small as Eagleton, Colo., (search) — just 3,500 residents — where everyone supposedly already knew who the victim was anyway—they got it wrong. The Kobe Bryant case is actually making the case for rape shield laws—exhibiting in full ugly reality what happens when the identity of a rape victim is not protected.

This case has raised this particular issue because we want Kobe Bryant to be innocent. We need him to be innocent. I know I do. I was at a press conference several years ago when a then-17-year-old Kobe signed an early endorsement deal with Adidas (search) (he’s now with Nike) and was answering questions about whether he would be taking teen singing star Brandi (search) to the prom.

There was much discussion about how Kobe, years from his 21st birthday and unable to participate in his teammates’ on-the-road nightlife, would be spending many lonely hours alone in his hotel room during the basketball season. How would he handle the isolation, let alone the money, the fans, the pressure, the lifestyle? It was going to take incredible resources of maturity and discipline, his handlers admitted, but Kobe was an incredible young man.

I’ve been rooting for Kobe ever since, and every time I read an article criticizing him for being a loner or keeping to himself or being “too into his wife” (whatever that means), I’m reminded of that press conference when he was publicly advised to do exactly that.

So, I’ve been relieved by the reports that his accuser is mentally unstable and may be simply suffering from buyer’s remorse, so to speak. I was shocked and disappointed when Kobe admitted that any sex at all had taken place, and I’ve been clinging to every morsel of information casting doubt on his accuser’s story. But I don’t think I should know who she is.

If he’s found guilty, Kobe Bryant will hardly be the first American hero with a sterling reputation to be revealed to not be the great guy we thought he was, but because we love him and can’t bear the disillusionment of his downfall are not reasons enough to reverse the hard-won progress our legal system and culture has made in recognizing the rights of rape victims (search).

Being accused of rape attaches a horrible stigma to the accused as well as the accuser, and there’s no question that women have made such claims falsely. As a celebrity in the media glare, Kobe Bryant, innocent or guilty, will never be able to completely erase the stain of these charges. But outing female accusers — and subjecting them to the vilification this victim is being subjected to — does not protect men, whether they are wrongfully or rightfully accused. It just drags both names through the proverbial mud.

Maybe we’re looking at the issue entirely backwards. Here’s a radical thought: Maybe in “he said, she said” cases of date rape, we need to protect the identity of the accused as well as the accuser until the case has been resolved.

[Kuciwalker]

You have no right to privacy when making an accusation of a crime. I can understand it (and support it) when you are being brought to trial, but it is the RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED to a fair and impartial trial that is guaranteed.

[BunnyGrrl]

The impression that i get from this laborious debate is hatred of women plain and simple. First, none of you fools are as famous as Kobe Bryant and will probably not appear in the international press if accused of any crime let alone rape. So why do you care so much about this issue? You suggest that violence should fall upon a "false" accuser as if this is the answer to the earth's ills. Violence and oppression is the reason why rape exists in the first place. You say that women have too much power with rape accusation as a weapon. Give me a ****ing break. YOUR physical power is used against us far more often. Get over yourselves. Being falsly accused of rape should not be the concern of the average man. There are far more women who are actually sexually assaulted than there are men who find themselves falsly accused. Here's an idea, women wouldnt be raped by men if men would stop raping women. if you worked toward the goal of eliminating rape from society, then there'd be less of a chance for anyone to be falsly accused of rape.

[Kuciwalker]

DL DANCE

[Asher]

First, none of you fools are as famous as Kobe Bryant and will probably not appear in the international press if accused of any crime let alone rape. So why do you care so much about this issue?

Hooray for a single statement that is so incredibly ridiculous that it invalidates everything else you'll ever say on this site.

[Ned]

I think the law should require a grand jury indictment where the standard is clear and convining evidence. There has simply got to be some filter between a complaint and and charge.

Theorectically, anything taken before a grand jury is secret.

[Asher]

When I was in Jr. High, a (rather large and overbearing) girl told the vice principal and her parents that my friend and I were "stalking" her. We took her schoolbus home just so we could see where she lived, all that kind of stuff.

We both hated her with a passion beforehand, she was a drama-queen ***** who constantly slapped people on the back because she thought it was cool or something.

Anyway, it's not like being accused of rape, but it was quite the same thing -- we were guilty because she said she was, and her parents threatened to go to the cops if we "kept stalking her". We told the principal that we did no such thing, but he said "But she's such a nice girl, she'd never lie" (and by implication, we [honour students] were obviously not nice and would obviously lie )

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
DL DANCE

Actually, people on the OT have actually met her. They wonder why she puts up with me.