Facebook supports rape?

[MotherPanda]

Have we a thread on this yet?

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/04/facebook-hate-speech-women-rape?newsfeed=true

I am really shocked.

[SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius]

I have not agreed with everything said on this thread, but am more than happy (though that is not the right word in the circumstances) to agree that saying: "Nope, ironic you should say that though, you're happy to attack others yet hate being attacked about your exaggerated/partly false story of one of you unfortunate past experiances" - is truly offensive and unacceptable. Mrstoon - you should be ashamed of that.

[SardineQueen]

mrstoon how could you possibly know that experiences related on here are exaggerated or are lies?

Only two ways I can think of TBH.

[SardineQueen]

But there's no point getting irate at mrstoon whose sole intention in posting is to get people irate.

[TheRhubarb]

I'm not reading all of these messages, I had to walk away over the weekend. However I do not like my name being associated with a troll. Whatever MrsToon might have said, it is not fair to associate my name with that.

Also just to point out that I have never ever stated or even used the word 'expert' on this thread. SQ asked how I knew about characteristics and I told her that I once studied criminology at University. She mis-read my posts to read that I was studying and that I was a criminologist. I am not. I studied it and we covered criminal motives and criminal characteristics. I did state that my opinion was based on what I had learnt. If that is to be interpreted that I am an expert then that is the fault of the interpreter.

IMHO I do think - and I stand by this - that the argument was over and done with and the thread moved on when all of this was raked up again for one purpose. It is one thing to disagree with someone, but quite another to say that person claimed to be an expert, that the person blames rape victims, that the person dismisses rape experiences that the person doesn't believe rape victims (which is tantamount to saying they are lying) and yes, those comments have now been deleted but I read them as did many other posters.

It's also very very bad form to bring up something that has been apologised for and to carry on discussing it even when the poster has left the thread.

This is not about me being right. I stated time and again that I was happy to agree to disagree. This is about a debate turning into a nasty attack. And I'm not the only one am I? Other Mumsnetters who have dared to disagree have had the same treatment.

I will not stop posting on feminist threads and I will not apologise for having opinions. If any of you make the London meet-up, it will be nice to meet you in person.

[TheRhubarb]

SDTG posted this that everyone ignored and it is exactly what I meant and exactly what I was saying. But I guess all this has been lost in the, what would you call this? Not a debate but more like a slanging match.

"Well - this is a very long thread, so it may be I have forgotten a post - but as far as I was aware, no-one had said that rapists had noticeable characteristics, ones that people should be able to see, so they should know to steer clear of them. Rhubarb said that there are definable characteristics, but being able do define something doesn't mean you can see it from the outside. I suffer from depression - it is a definable characteristic, but you can't tell by looking at me that I suffer depression.

My impression is that people saw the mentions of definable characteristics, and decided that this meant 'definable and visible and if you didn't see them then being raped is your own fault' - which Rhubarb has said clearly isn't what she meant or what she believes, and then Rhubarb was leapt on for that mistaken belief.

Also, fwiw, I'm not Rhubarb's friend, and I think it is wrong to accuse someone of disbelieving rape victims and being a rape apologist. I know that no-one has used the exact phrase, 'You, Rhubarb, are a rape apologist' - she has read the comments aimed at her, and has read between the lines, in exactly the same way that others have read between the lines of her statements, and decided she believes rapists have visible characteristics that should ring alarm bells for women."

Thank you SDTG. And I'm very very sorry Custy that you came on this thread on my behalf and was attacked for doing so. You told me on the phone that your comment about the Christmas do had been taken out of context and you sounded upset about that. //hugs FWIW Custy would never threaten anyone, it is not in her nature at all. To suggest otherwise is cruel and unfair. She has been involved in the MN Christmas Do for years and welcomes everyone, whoever they are. She is quiet, kind and generous and the least threatening person I know. To accuse her of anything otherwise is despicable.

[Prolesworth]

Cath Elliott has posted a follow-up to her CiF piece on her blog here

This thread is mentioned

[Beachcomber]

Thanks for the link Proles - really interesting.