..To be mortified at the treatment of rape victims at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre?

[TorghunKhan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clynyky7kj9o

No women only spaces for 16 months. Basically women, RAPED women - were told they could not definitely see a woman to help them with such an awful crime, they might have to see a man in a dress, and if they objected they were to be 're eductaed' by the man in charge - a man who himself applied for, and got!! a job which was supposed to be only filled by a woman.

It's shameful, disgusting, but whats worse is how many people put up with it!! Who thought this was ok?! why did nobody do anything, or say anything FOR YEARS

It was made quite clear that being right for the wrong reasons was very nearly as much of a sin as being wrong for the wrong reasons. Whereas being wrong for the right reasons would still leave that poster on the side of virtue.

And we see this in the idea of "disinformation" from the BBC etc, there's scope creep in moving from combating "fake news" which is objectively not supported by evidence to combating stuff that might be true but isn't virtuous and doesn't suit the "progressive" agenda. And we can fib or lie by omission to do that, is left unsaid.

I've heard said: "My enemy's enemy is my friend." but I'm surprised you seek support from an article representing the dogma of the Roman Catholic patriarchy.

It's an interesting essay. Have you read it?

This is a good one too

unherd.com/2023/10/the-tyranny-of-pathological-kindness/

(needs context; sorry)

Or honest, or honourable.

@NoBinturongsHereMate I think you are being scolded for Wrong for the Wrong Reasons? At least, not for Unseemly Tone nor for Impoliteness.

I think some of the points are very interesting about the balancing out of virtues. I think it's an odd position to throw out everything the article is saying because it references older forms of thinking about virtue. Why not read it and analyse the points it's making instead?

And actually, it references lots of different cultural ways of thinking about virtue from all over the world.

Because it is not really attacking an imaginary morality based only on "being kind". It is attacking a moral system where virtues opposed to the Ten Commandments are supported. The "being kind" morality is a straw man, no one believes in it as a sole basis for morality. The author just doesn't like some of the "progressive" causes the school is promoting. The author wants to replace learning about right and wrong with learning what the Church teaches, and, especially, confessing to a celibate male priest when you have deviated from it.

If all you are drawing from it is that some "progressive" causes are ill thought out and silly or immoral then fair enough.

The "being kind" morality is a straw man, no one believes in it as a sole basis for morality.

Actually I'm not sure that's true. What do you think people's base for morality is?

The author wants to replace learning about right and wrong with learning what the Church teaches, and, especially, confessing to a celibate male priest when you have deviated from it.

I think what is most interesting about it is the broader concept of morality that the author draws attention to that's expressed through the Christian virtues. These aren't 'catholic dogma' by the way, they're central to all Christian thinking

Did you miss the bits about the ancient Greeks, Romans, Buddhists etc?

Looks like it

A huge amount of Christian teaching on these issues was strongly shaped by Greek attitudes anyway.

The review notes the “damage done” by ERCC to victims and survivors, but that damage needs to be owned by all who supported and pushed these policies.

this cannot be said enough. Those telling others to be kind , to not point out that males remain males and to call males who for whatever reason need to be referred to as female, need to take ownership of their demands.

Have only had time to skim read posts since I was last on this thread (imo derailers are best ignored as it clogs up a thread and it only encourages them!) so my comments relate to earlier points.

I think I posted a while back that it was a shame the other women's services providers haven't commentated.

Yesterday Rape Crisis (England & Wales) that share / co authoted the guidelines that federated RCCs are meant to abide by, have said they are going to review what happened in Scotland as in theory it couldn't have happened had the agreed guidelines been followed.

And worth remembering that despite msm headlines and women journalist who are all jumping in to comment, not having support RCCs remaining women only, that they dont always represent what is happening.

ie an article is being shared today which lazily says there would be no women only RCC services in Scotland without Beira's Place being set up.

This is factually incorrect. There are 3 RCCs in Scotland that are women only, who have had to struggle really hard against sector pressure to be trans inclusive, and political and financial pressure as well.

Just because women who have acess to newspapers haven't written about them, they do exist and many women have had intense personal pressure to maintain the founding principles of RCCs.

We need a system where women locally should be able to support without interferring, local DV projects and RCs, so as to confront local councillors who say women only services are too expensive.

If the past months I've read of at least 5 women's refuges being closed just because they are too costly and it is assumed a generic homelessness project will be sufficient for women fleeing domesstic violence.

Never forget the sucess of TRAs sucess is based on the underlying much older misogyny of MRAs. If men's rights wasn't the default social norm, TRAs would never have got a foothold.

After all if society respect women, TRAs would have been laughed out of existence. It is the underlying lack of respect for women, let alone their right to autonomy, that made it possible for people to accept that if a man says he is a woman he must be right.

Cross posting this because it's similar gender madness that should never have happened, just this one is funny in it's stupidity - https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5167718-to-be-incensed-that-a-man-cost-council-tax-payers-ps63000-for-insisting-he-had-a-gender-fluid-daschund

Edited as posted on the wrong thread!

More people need to read what you’ve posted here. It’s truly shameful

It was interesting but I wasn’t persuaded by the argument.

Primarily he seemed to be saying that actually kindness is kool as a virtue but we also need the other virtues as well as a bit sin. Whereas I disagree with labelling people’s abhorrent actions as ‘sin’ and I am more critical of the kindness proselytising.

Will have a look at the other article though.

The SNP appears to have done no reflection whatsoever on just what the possible reasons might be that they were pulverised at the recent general election.

Or what might, at least in part, have contributed to the political downfall of Nicola Sturgeon (Isla Bryson), and Penny Mordaunt before her.

Or whether, just possibly, there might be at least one underlying common denominator.

Head scratch ...

It was interesting but I wasn’t persuaded by the argument.

Fair enough, I just thought it was an interesting way to frame it. I'm not a Roman Catholic or ever likely to be.

I agree @Ereshkigalangcleg that the whole be kind contingent is highly problematic but I see that this was thoroughly discussed on this thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4948611-the-tyranny-of-kindness-pathocracy-and-narcissism

I didn't know this. Thanks for sharing

Should have been fired. A resignation is still a failure

Exactly; which means female counsellors for female victims.