The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

[DontCallMePeanut]

From The Telegraph

Sorry, my head's not in the right place to provide any critique of this at the moment, but thought this would interest the members of the feminist section. Will attempt to comment when I have a clearer head.

MsHodge, you have been repeatedly banned not because of one particular post, but because you have been banned.

Yes I can see where your sense of justice comes from now, all clear.

Don't play in the feminists garden unless you agree with their principles.

No wonder people think of feminists in the same manner as religious zealouts, you cannot have a discussion.

'spout an unpopular opinion'

Ah I see. Mostly we stick to facts and logic on this forum, we try to argue and reason, and often come up with unpopular conclusions. This approach can be a bit tiresome if all you want to do is spout half baked hatefilled opinions though, so I can see how MN might not suit everyone.

I think you think I am someone else. I have been removed once, today. That is it.

'Don't play in the feminists garden unless you agree with their principles.'

Similarly don't play in the Evolutionists' garden if you're a creationist. Every thread is not a 'Let's debate the fundamental premise' thread.

'No wonder people think of feminists in the same manner as religious zealouts, you cannot have a discussion.'
Would that be you 'spouting' an 'opinion' again, then?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone else is entitled to dismiss that opinion on the basis that it's a bit simple, ill thought out, prejudiced.

Once today. That means more than once previously? Which means that you have been banned. If I was banned from a nightclub, it wouldn't matter if I went back the next day. Or in in 5 minutes time. I would still be banned.

We (England Wales) should have 'not proven' like they do up there in Haggis A-Go-Go Land. Otherwise thick people might assume an acquittal means the defendant didn't do it.

I agree. It's just to ambiguous a term.

Dunno about that. Do most alleged rapists get off with a not proven verdict in Scotland, as opposed to not guilty?

I don't know. Don't really care either, just wading through the exchange with that freakoid above (why? Does he think there are hundreds of men falsely accused of rape currently languishing in prison?) made me think of it.

I think I'd prefer a not proven verdict (as a victim) to a not guilty

Not guilty is too final, implies it didn't happen, and probably helps some of these myths.

Not proven is more likely to be interpreted as a case of it possibly, maybe even probably happened. We just haven't got that definitive evidence.

However, I do think we'd see, possibly, a drop in guilty verdicts if a not proven verdict was available. So, in other ways, it could be damaging to the cause

Doesn't not proven mean 'you are free, don't do it again' or something like that?

I know, but there's still that label. That's the way I'd look at it.

Like I said. It could have it's benefits, but could also be really damaging to the cause,

I'll agree there.

Or possibly just interview each juror on a rape case before it starts. Replace anyone who victim blames

Wouldn't work, would it... :(

Why do we want to improve conviction rates? Does it make people feel better? Until they come out two years later and do it to someone else anyway.

I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed Miss Hodge's name...

MissHodgeInHay...
Mis'OdgeIn'Ay
Misogyny...

Well done, Misogyny... It took me a while to notice.

I noticed this morning and asked mnhq to get rid of him.