Radfem 2013 and the MRAs

These rapists walking free, is that after being found guilty by a jury or based on something else?

It could be based on accepted figures that 9 out of 10 rapes go unreported.

Wasn't William Roache calling for anonymity for men charged with rape? Just before he was arrested and charged with rape himself. Funny that.

Sooner or later, MRA's always get onto the topic of false rape allegations. Always.

Mini.

The statement as written stands. Innocent until proven guilty in ALL forums for all crimes.

At no point have I said that rape would be better than loss of respect.

My standing within the social order doesn't really bother me as much as you seem to believe, but I wouldn't say it doesn't bother me at all. Oddly I am used to being seen as something totally different or lesser to what I am.

Strangely it probably bothers you more. After all you are involved in a movement to raise your social positioning, job prospects and (I assume) even out these man made laws on property rights.

These rapists walking free, is that after being found guilty by a jury or based on something else?

Would you like to be stood in the dock, knowing you would lose name and liberty due to anything other than 'beyond reasonable doubt'?

Or is it just men that should be exposed to such treatment?

Loz, why not just admit either the statement is wrong (you don't actually think this) or fess up and admit that you do indeed think that the loss of respect is worse than rape. But you can't can you. And this proves oh so succinctly that what matters most to men, is what other men think of them. It matters most whether they can maintain their standing within the social order, maintain a job and private property rights in a society where 2/3rds of all man made laws relate to property rights, where bank robbers go down for life and rapists walk free. Of course men don't walk around living in fear of being raped, instead they walk around in fear of false accusations.........why might they find themselves vulnerable to this? by their own actions of course.

Bubbles, you have a fair few character flaws yourself.

I've been in the position 'of visitor' to people who have been beaten up. Oddly, I didn't say any such thing.

That said, at no point did I make any such specific comparisons in my posts in the first place.

You and others have used the rape and GBH angle in order to rubbish my statement, without actually rebutting it.

Traps for fools, made from twisted words by rascals.

Basil. The post below is the one you keep dipping in to.

It is reposted in its entirety. It was in response to me (having a dip in to what MRA groups are out there and listing a few) listing that there was a group(s) seeking anonymity for those accused of rape.

I believe it makes my view point very clear.

*'Yes, I am actually against revealing the identity of ALL accused, unless guilt is proven or in a probability of guilt/probability of help balance - a decision to be taken by a judge or other responsible person after due consideration.

False/malicious accusations are as odious as the actual act, if not more so. The belief that someone can just shrug the accusation off, on being cleared, is absurd.

These sort of cases are merely the lead cases, with the massive change in media over the years people can not just 'shrug' accusations off. No matter how hard.

With background checks on job applicants becoming ever more prevalent even accusations of quite mundane crimes could affect the individual unduly. The internet means you can't even move to a new town/area.

The basic premise is 'innocent until proven guilty', even Romans had this outlook, the burden of proof was on the accuser not the accused.'*

This is the whole post. If you read the WHOLE post you will understand it. You seem to 'cherry pick' whichever part triggers you the most emotionally, or indeed the part you feel you can pick me apart the easiest.

I will explain in detail.

The basic tenet of British law (and sense of fair play) is 'innocent until proven guilty'. This is (IMHO) an overarching principle of our legal system.

No matter how heinous the crime, how disreputable the accused or how lowly the victim our system weigh the events and acts accordingly in a fair way.

In this modern world we live in, we have computers, internet and a vast array of media. This has (IMHO) led to a sort of 'mob justice' scenario. How many times do we see a particularly shifty looking person in the paper, listed as accused. The picture itself (on every news stand) showing all and sundry how shifty and guilty this person must be.

We also have the old staples of 'gossip' in the community.

The accused are no longer 'innocent until proven guilty' but automatically guilty. If let off they are seen as 'beating the system' rather than the system weighing up the probability of guilt and finding them not guilty.

So, my position is that those accused of any crime, so this affects ALL crimes (ALL CRIMES Basil, ALL CRIMES as in every possibility, not just one or a few, ALL CRIMES. Please ask for clarification on what ALL CRIMES means if you are hard of understanding), should be protected by anonymity as a basic right.

Unless the investigators can prove to a competent person that the release of this information is valid and the benefits to the case, outweigh potential harm to the individual.

Only the truly foolish believe people can walk away from accusations of wrongdoing with no stain on their character. Even if you are going for a menial job in a shop - should the owner/manager find out you were once 'accused' of theft, how do they then think of that individual?

Now then, Basil, just to confirm, which crimes do I believe should be protected? Please tick one.

a. Just crimes that the reader thinks I am talking about.
b. Just crimes that the reader gets emotional about.
c. All.
d. The crimes that will rally the most support against the individual poster by purposely mis-reading their intentions.
e. I don't know.

Let's not have any more silly 'comparisons' of victim of v falsely accused of various serious crimes.

Hi Doctrine and Basil... I wonder what comfort Lazarus would be as a hospital visitor to a patient tanked up on morphine, jaw wired together, face swollen, ribs broken , nose flat and teeth missing...

"Think about how much worse it could be- some people get falsely accused of GBH- count yourself lucky you aren't one of them"....

"My values may be different to yours but they are not wrong."

Lazarus you have an inability to assess scale and proportion. That is a defect you have - and not a relative matter.

Hi Laz

If you like, then, ignoring all your previous posts and just as a conversational point, which would you prefer?.

"Could the religious warnings (ie Lilith and Eve) be a simple warning to men about the 'true' nature of women at that time?"

WTF does that even mean?

What are you trying to ask/ say there?

"I can't see how you can use both a biological determinist argument and a social one to assess a dialectical phenomena."
I agree Mini - I think the author takes big leaps there- and her leap of assumption about the statement from the organsisers of radfem principally speaking about herself when they mention people who "claim to' be radical feminists, without any qualification as to why she took that leap puts me off her perspective.

This is what you said in your Wed 08-May-13 20:15:09 post:

"False/malicious accusations are as odious as the actual act, if not more so. The belief that someone can just shrug the accusation off, on being cleared, is absurd."

You were talking about rape in that post, not about any other crime.

"I said ALL criminal acts were odious, and that the act of a false accusation could be more odious certain in circumstances..."

Which circumstances?

Just rape, by any chance?

Basil and Doctrine, you are both rather foolishly pursuing this.

Read what I said. I said ALL criminal acts were odious, and that the act of a false accusation could be more odious certain in circumstances...

Your question is inane.

Well done though, Basil. Backing up your mucker like that. I like to see that sort of thing.

I'd never dream of it, Mini... equality and all that.

You've certainly opened up Pandora's Box there. Are women as they are for social or biological reasons, are men as they are for social or biological reasons?

Could the religious warnings (ie Lilith and Eve) be a simple warning to men about the 'true' nature of women at that time?

BubblesOfBliss, that is my understanding now, I have gone back and read her Blog "1000 Years of This. 40 Years of That" where she is critiquing Lerner's work. I can't believe the conclusions she has reached having read Lerner.

"and we notably have never as far as i can tell tried to convince anyone that mens true nature wasnt and isnt exactly what it appears to be, and what men demonstrate by their own behavior, institutions and dictates across time and place"

"women who for 1000 years (or more) have been documenting what appears to be a universal model of male behavior that doesnt differ at all across time and place"

Stranger still is this: "feminist-thinking women have been asserting for over a millenia that womens nature is misrepresented by patriarchy (and via patriarchal institutions such as religion) and that this is a deliberate ploy on behalf of men who want to dominate and enslave us. women know, somehow, that this is not our true nature"

Leaving aside whether you have a historical/material conception of history or cultural, or choose culture over a materialist framework in trying to understand the inequalities between men and women, she thinks that the social totality that shapes women's behaviour doesn't effect men. So whilst traits that are deemed feminine are socialised, masculine traits are determined by biology. So if women are not naturally inclined to be deferential, non-combative, submissive and nurturing then what is our true nature? Might this mean that women could be "naturally" violent, combative, domineering etc,... If this were true, might femonade conclude we all need to be "dealt" with. I can't quite get my head round the idea that if human history has been one of great struggle between the sexes (as Firestone set out) wouldn't it be logical to say all traits considered male/female, masculine/feminine are either: natural and innate or due to social processes. I can't see how you can use both a biological determinist argument and a social one to assess a dialectical phenomena.

Oh and Loz, don't make special concessions for me

So what would you prefer then?

You haven't actually answered her question, just bored us all again with a predictable childish come-back.

I can really see why MRE's don't consider themselves alpha males.

'TheDoctrineOfSnatch Sat 11-May-13 13:29:24

Hi Laz

Would you rather be badly beaten up or be falsely accused of GBH?'

You appear to be trying to get me in to a battle of wits...

alas you have turned up unarmed.

So what I glean about it is that the factcheckme author is a biological determinist(?) (which she calls non-social determinist)... I reckon by 'social determinist/reformist radical feminism' she means the vast majority of radical feminism- where gender is viewed to be a social construct that must be abolished as part of ending patriarchy and reforming society. The biological determinist view I imagine would be that men are innately violent and women need to set up separate societies from men or take other measures to contain and control men in order to be free from their violence and dominance....

Regarding the fatcheckme site. She says:
as an example of the MRA/tranny anti-radfem propaganda campaign, the radfem13 organizers state that MRAs and others are guilty of "Singling out individual women who call themselves radical feminist and claiming that they represent radical feminism or all radical feminist views (In fact, the movement is diverse and many claim to be radical feminist but, of course, as a movement for social change, we?d wish to discuss those differences internally)" lol. see what they did there? more denial and erasure of non-social determinist radical feminists by social determinist/reformist radical feminists. of course, like a lot of good PR, this is partly true ? non-social determinist radfems are indeed all the time being attacked by MRAs. we are teh evol, you see, and apparently, reformist radfems and MRAs/trannies are mostly in agreement on that point. d?oh!

I think there's a serious wrong-end-of-the-stick-grabbing. By saying lots of people 'claim' to be radfems in the organiser's statement, I would have thought that this refers to variances such as those who call themselves radical feminist but are not gender-abolitionist or not prostitution abolitionist or who don't critique heterosexuality... Perhaps also including people who exhibit a tribalist hatred of transpeople rather than rejecting gender identity and queer theory.... Or perhaps the fatcheckme author has some insider info that justifies her assumption

Hi Laz

Would you rather be badly beaten up or be falsely accused of GBH?

Google it.

It's all there.

Does anyone know what social determinist/reformist radical feminism is all about?

I have never heard of this. It sounds as though the author was being a bit presumptious about whom the 'claim to' referred- so clearly an important and sensitive distinction for her...

Just for you Mini, I'll try to get my heels out.

Although please don't assume it is because you are women. I am what I am, to men as much as women. Seriously.

Only recently I butted heads with a (male) superior (never met him before).

My motivation? I've left a predominately male environment, that by accepted terms is probably heavily 'violently masculine' (still don't like the term).

Oh, and I like to think I am Libertarian, but will sometimes veer left or right depending upon topic.

Incidentally, my Mrs attended a single-sex school. She has mixed views on the experience.

No, I was a tree climbing, camp building, catapult wielding menace as a child, no decent girls school would have taken me . My mother was a socialist and feminist as were many of her friends.

I have just been reading this factcheckme.wordpress.com/

Does anyone know what social determinist/reformist radical feminism is all about?

And I don't think this update has been linked here yet sisterhoodispowerful.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/the-dangerous-tale-of-the-mres-and-their-allies/ if anyone is interested.

"I think I might have skipped through 1-6 at break neck speed."
Did you have the good fortune of going to a single-sex school?