Derailers... Help? <possible triggers>

[TakingBackSaturday]

How do you deal with them?

The derailer in question is a close friend, who identifies as a feminist. However, of late, I've noticed she has a tendency to derail feminist conversations; one of which was a conversation about rape, in which she insisted it was unfair on men to exclaim that "men shouldn't rape", because, as far as she was concerned, it labelled all men rapists. She's supposed to be an English student, so should have more awareness of how the English language works... But still.

She also went on to explain how this comment was unfair, on the basis that it assumes all rapists are men, and it eliminates the victims of female rapists. We're both in England, so under our law, the presence of a penis is needed for a rape. When she was challenged on this, she carried on to say we didn't know how many male victims of women rapists there are, considering how shaming it must be for a man to admit he's been raped by a woman.

How do I explain to her that forcing women to talk about men in a predominantly woman based experience is derailing, and misogynistic? Because, atm, she won't listen to anyone who tries to explain.

Notthefullshilling - 'that's feminism 101 that is'.

nyac answers er, no it's not.

Shilling 'well what is feminism 101 then?' as if that's what the threads about. Ha ha ha.

Men's rights activists.

Your claims NTFS that supposedly telling people what to think is like raping them has nothing to do with feminist analysis or feminism. What you just claimed there was in fact anti-feminism.

Rape is a crime against another human being. It is a physical assault which generally has lasting and severely traumatic consequences for the victim, right up to and including forced pregnancy.

Someone saying something you disagree with on the other hand, even if you think they are telling you what to think (do they have power over your mind? No? Well then) - you'll get over it in about five minutes.

Again. Women can't rape. We don't have penises.

not strictly true, if a grown woman was to have a sexual relationship with an underage boy , it would be considered statutory rape.
Again the example of a russian woman who drugged and raped men,
and if a woman sodomised a man with an object, that would still be rape in a sense, i know that last one happens very rarely but if the law says a woman cannot rape, it needs to be changed.
If some man violated a woman with a dildo it would still be rape, iyswim.

Ditch that example if you like then WW, the rest still stand.
I was finding it hard to think of a crime that is committed mainly by women and not really by men and that was the best I could come up with.
Your complaint is different to what I was using it to illustrate anyway.

archimedes there is no such thing as statutory rape in the UK.
And rape laws vary across the world, in some penetration of any type is rape so men can be raped.
This is all picking hairs though isn't it. There is not an epidemic of women drugging / getting men drug and then putting things up their bottoms.

I mean men can be raped by women with objects.
But I mean honestly how often does that happen.

I presume you do read the threads about emotional abuse nyac, I have worked with women who were so trapped and so belittled by other peoples words that they were physicle and emotional wrecks for decades after. You need to get a grip, being raped is about power. All domination of one person by another is about power, where does feminism derive it's legitamancy from if not that. I may not be a rad fem but if rad fems are fighting some other battle perhaps we should know about it.

I seem to be debating several diffrent points, and no heels this was a thread about someone who was expressing a point of view that was held to be problematicle. So would rad fem 101 be we want to rule the world and tell men what to do?

No come to think of it don't bother I am withdrawing again from this thread as apparently I am a stooge of the mens movement.

Interesting that Archimedes thinks the law should be changed - so you think there are hordes of women who go around sodomising men with dildos and then getting away with because women can't be charged with rape?

The law being changed wouldn't be top of my list of priorities - I think we should maybe try and get a better conviction rate for rapists than 5% first.

Yes and that's why men are always so careful about their personal security when they're around women - making sure they don't get left alone with them or separated off from their friends, in case she somehow gets them alone and rapes them with a dildo.

It happens so often. Men are really terrified aobut this. They plan how to get home well in advance, so this doesn't happen. They ensure that they have a list of cab numbers, all of them licensed of course, so this doesn't happen. They have agreements with their mates, that if they get really drunk, they don't get left with a bunch of women to ensure that this doesn't happen. They make sure they don't invite women into their homes when they're alone, so this doesn't happen. When they hear that it's happened to another man, they wonder how he could have been so stupid as to put himself in that situation, and thank their lucky stars that they're too careful to let it happen to them.

Er.

"I think we should maybe try and get a better conviction rate for rapists than 5% first."

'We' have, it's now around 10%.

Please don't tell me to get a grip. It's very rude.

You keep changing the subject, we weren't talking about emotional abuse, we were talking about feminists making political points, which you likened to raping someone and then laughably claimed that it was Feminism 101.

Anyhow, I've just noticed that upthread you likened feminists to Pol Pot, so what you' said is not to be taken seriously NTFS. Over and out.

SQ - what about child abuse cases then? Just thinking of Vanessa George and Angela Allen- even if it was a man who enticed them, they were women who carried it out.

I don't know the exact details of the abuse - but if they used anything to penetrate the children, why on earth should that not be called rape?

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/vanessa-george-jailed-child-sex-abuse

What with that and Notthefullshillings talk of radfems and world domination it is a perfect example of thread derailment.

I'm surprised men haven't banned dildos if they're such a danger to them.

eccles presumably that figure is for rapes reported to the police, as opposed to all rapes. Thinking about all rapes that happen, the amount that result in a conviction is tiny.

WW what does it matter? What these crimes are called. Sexual assault, sexual abuse, penetration with an object, causing a child to engage in sexual activity, sex with a minor.... As long as they are recognised as crimes I don't see what the problem is.

Of all of these crimes it is patently obvious that the majority of perpetrators are men.

If it doesn't matter what these crimes are called, why then the insistence that rape can only be carried out with a penis?

Surely you cant claim that it does and doesn't matter at the same time?

Changing the legal definition - what will it achieve? It won't result in more reports or convictions or anything like that. So why do people want the law changed? Isn't this detracting from the main problem ie men women and children being sexually attacked the whole time?

The fact that in Uk law women can't rape didn't prevent Vanessa George from beign prosecuted, found guilty and her name is up in people's consciousnesses as a really evil person. (If she did commit an assault by penetration I have no idea either).

The reason they shouldn't be called rape, is because the law doesn't recognise them as rape.

A penis is the weapon used in rape. Nothing else.

Under English law. In some states in America, this would be recognised as rape, because it doesn't need to be a penis, it can be any object. In some European countries I believe that may be the case as well.

But saying "why shouldn't this be rape" is pointless - it's not. If you want to get the law changed and make this rape legally, then by all means, campaign for it.

I don't think it matters that much either, except that a penis can transmit sperm which means risk of pregnancy and/ or STD's some of which are non-curable. I think that's worth recognising.

SQ, yes; someone mentioned the 5/6% conviction rate - I corrected them with the more up-to-date figure.

Focussing on conviction rates is a red herring though, because you could easily get a high % of convictions by only prosecuting the absolute sure-bet cases. Getting a higher reporting rate is the really important one, imo.

And incidentally I can't even remember the name of the man who orchestrated the whole thing. What does that say.

WW I don't give a monkeys what they call it in the UK as long as the law is clear and strong.

eccles the conviction rate of cases that actually go to court is in line with other crimes ie 50 or 60% iirc.

Or do you mean that you think the police are "no criming" a lot of reports of rape, that certainly used to be the case.

I've just scanned through this thread, so maybe I've misunderstood. If a man (or much less commonly a women) uses another object to rape a woman (or less commonly) a man, they can't be charged with rape? What can they be charged with? Does it carry the same sentence?

ecclesvat that's exactly what happens atm - you get a highish percentage of convictions (0-60% ish I think, could be wrong?) by only prosecuting what the CPS thinks are the sure fire convictions.

90% of reports don't go to court. Some of that number, don't even get put forward to the CPS. And of course, up to 90% don't even make it the report stage.

BigJessie, they'd be charged with sexual assault and yes, it carries the same potential sentence as rape (the maximum being life imprisonment, but that's hardly ever passed).

Also rape as a weapon of war, and in other countries eg where men are legally allowed to rape their wives - in those contexts it means smething quite specific. And captures a load of stuff about power structures and so on as well.