Oxford Union president rape allegations - alumni open letter

"let the guilty who falsely accuse "

Please stop saying this, Jane.

That's a bit of a straw man argument, jane.

No one ever proposed he should lose 'all [he] had worked for'. This sort of melodramatic response is scaremongering.

We've already answered the Annabel Karmel (I assume that's who you mean by Annabel C) question. You might try reading our posts instead of insulting us.

Of course a female teacher accused of sexual harrassment should (and, I imagine would) be suspended while she was investigated! What planet are you on that you have to ask this question?!

Well I don't agree. If any of us were falsely accused why should we lose all we had worked for - that is to let the guilty who falsely accuse win. I am appalled women support that stance. I think it's dreadful and very unfair when feminism is all about fairness for all.

Do we think Annabel C should have resigned as a director of her company when her employee made allegations of sexual harassment against her?

I am not saying these cases are always easy. If we had a female teacher accused of fondling boy pupils - but the boys made it up to get at her as they often do as indeed often do teenage girls about male teachers - should they resign even where no evidence is found to charge them? One big defect is how long these cases take to get to a resolution which at least we have managed to avoid in this university case. Sometimes people are put on leave at tax payer expense for years whilst things are looked into.

So well done done to this boy and I hope he manages to make a success of things.

janeparker, you are being very provocative, deliberately I suspect. You have no idea it was a false allegation.

Not being charged with rape does not equal falsely accused.

I doubt he's a poor young student, Jane. Certainly, he attempted to save his own money by, er, 'borrowing' the Union's.

You do not know there was so little evidence he wasn't charged, do you?

How sad it is that you cannot even read a thread properly.

And what a surprise to find you lobby for fathers' rights (not that he is a father, that I know of? I assume you're just throwing that in there to see what reaction it gets from us horrible feminists).

I find the arguments of many on here on fathomable. Here a poor young student who could be one of our children was falsely accused. So little evidence was there he was not even charged. Yet even so unless he is able to exercise the new right to be forgotten after the Google case people will always say there is no smoke without fire. That is very very unjust. I am a feminist because I am against injustice. I lobby for fathers' rights.

It sounds as if some people on here simply have a pro female stance which is utterly at odds with fairness. How sad that is.

larry - my situation was designed to be about basics, FWIW. Loaves of bread would have been a better example.

But yes, surely, if you have a child who is disabled and needs financial support through life, and another who is not, could you honestly imagine saying 'ahh, fuck it, DC1 will probably die prematurely in poverty, but never mind, DC2 will have that deposit on a house!'

You see, we are not talking about two nice, well-off children to whom the money represents only their parents' love. That is not a replica situation - and it's one in which, of course, you would demonstrate you loved your children equally.

But when we are representing not affection but need and privilege, no, it is much more just to give to the person with greater need and less privilege.

Chunky,

Is it a straightforward question? Should parents adjust wills depending in the circumstances of their children or is fairness an even split of assets? Personally I think the latter.

Assuming you're still lurking, and unbiased, and for truth and justice, how about you solve LRD's apple problem - which is justice? One apple each, or trying to make sure they both have the same number of apples?

It's a far more straight forward, simple question than anything we've discussed so far, so the answer should be obvious - yet I don't know which is intrinsically fairer, ppplease enlighten me.

I've got to the post where please declares that one can be 'absolutely wrong' about truth and justice being words to describe social constructs, and my concentration is getting distracted by the soft thud of four millenia of philosophers rolling over in their graves.

Does it get better? I'm off to AIBU to whine about the nice lady who banged my car. See, equal opportunities whinger, me.

I'm a straw man, floating in the sky
I'd like to understand you, but I sometimes wonder why...

I had no idea that feminists didnt believe in truth and justice.
Ah well. The end.
I am leaving the thread at this point.

Am a little aghast as well that anyone genuinely adheres to the idea that "justice" is completely independent of social constructions etc.

This is patent nonsense. For a given crime, the justice applied will vary according to the country / people handing down that justice. It is entirely subjective and dependent on the social (& religious etc) mores of the place where it is applied.

For example, in some countries committing murder will get you the death penalty, in others a prison term. Both are reasonably called "justice" in the juristictions they apply. Both are subject to change / pressure to change from people who disagree with them - some people in areas with the death penalty want it gone, and vice versa. Justice is not a subjective inviolable fact, what it amounts to varies over time and by area.

This is obvious common sense, isn't it?

Well, thank the Goddess that all of these unbiased judges are around to save the justice system from feminists.

(Trigger warning)

www.itv.com/news/2013-08-07/judge/

Truth and justice. That which feminists throw out of the window with their huge great biases.

That is such, such bollocks. Feminism is the fight for equality - because women are not equal in society.

Home Office stats show that 90% of rapists walk free - women are so uneasy reporting rape that only 10% report. How is that truth and justice?

In that case, I put it to you, Ms Ppplease, that you don't have enough evidence that Ms C Winkelman deliberately wore something less than perfect in order to feature on the Telegraph Pinterest site.

Justice and truth depend greatly upon your own perspective. A person cannot exist without bias, and I for one embrace mine. I am bias against greed, suffering and inequality. To truly exist without bias I'd need to go up a mountain or in the middle of a desert by myself and mediate on nothing all day. There is still no guarantee I'd achieve anything beyond fuck and all in roughly that order.

I'm not particularly bias towards women per se, but see above re: suffering and inequality. Thus you'll often see me supporting the likes of Buffy and LRD. We may not share that feminist bias, but I'll respect it as I truly believe they want to move society in the same direction I do.

Different bias can be a good thing. More perspectives on an issue can be additive and revealing, instead of divisive and adversarial. Plus I find the notion that feminism is bias therefore unjust very insulting on behalf of my feminist friends. As well as just plain wrong.

Talking about justice in such an ephemeral and general way is not particularly helpful. Better I'd say to roll up your sleeves and get your hands dirty in this imperfect world and try to make it that little bit fairer and just if only in a small way today than it was yesterday.

Right.

So if a woman posts on MN saying she is an abusive relationship and xyz has happened, your stance is that she should be neither believed nor disbelieved (which is not what happens in society at the moment but we'll go with it) and questioned closely to try to judge whether she is telling teh truth or not.

You see at the moment unless there is a very good reason, posters believe her and give her advice accordingly.

I like the way it works at the moment. I doubt that it is going to change because you have said so

Aargh. This is so basic!
Truth and justice. That which feminists throw out of the window with their huge great biases.

The judgement you would make in court should be exactly the same as what you utter on mumsnet.

"The two should most definitely be one and the same."

Why?

It would, as I have said, be very different if I were not discussing things on MN, but making a judgement in court. But I'm not, am I?

The two should most definitely be one and the same.

No, justice and truth are words that describe social constructions.

Absolutely wrong.

So feminists are not even about truth either.

Seriously, pplease, if you didn't think feminism was primarily focused on women, what DID you think it was about?