Pulsar wrote:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/08/what-do-you-do-when-someone-pulls-the-pin-and-hands-you-a-grenade/comment-page-7/#comment-665457



No, Pickards won't do for this one. Where's the inverted Orson?

Nicko wrote:

Pebble wrote:May I recommend Susan Brownmiller 'Against Our Will' for an overview of why rape victims have done particularly badly in the criminal justice system over the years.

The central thesis of which is the ludicrously bigoted idea that rape is, "a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear".

It is not a serious sociological work. It is a paranoid, hysterical polemic characterised by baseless assertions and wild speculation. As an "overview of why rape victims have done particularly badly in the criminal justice system over the years" it is all but useless.

As a means to understanding the mindset of the kind of halfwit who thinks the credibility of rape victims would be increased by reducing the burden of proof in the courts to the level of the Salem Witch Trials, it is somewhat more useful.

Pebble wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Pebble wrote:May I recommend Susan Brownmiller 'Against Our Will' for an overview of why rape victims have done particularly badly in the criminal justice system over the years.

The central thesis of which is the ludicrously bigoted idea that rape is, "a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear".

It is not a serious sociological work. It is a paranoid, hysterical polemic characterised by baseless assertions and wild speculation. As an "overview of why rape victims have done particularly badly in the criminal justice system over the years" it is all but useless.

As a means to understanding the mindset of the kind of halfwit who thinks the credibility of rape victims would be increased by reducing the burden of proof in the courts to the level of the Salem Witch Trials, it is somewhat more useful.

So she was an activist not a scientist - however at least she took the time to research the subject.

Pebble wrote:Perhaps since you know so much about the subject you would care to explain why rape was prosecuted as an offence against a man's property for most of history and the very recent processes leading to judicial reform that gave rise to the current fairer system.

Pebble wrote:Or perhaps you feel that the current treatment of women in the more repressive islamic cultures is not a form of conscious intimidation, given that women were treated similarly in European and US law until the last centurary (even if enforcement had changed since the Enlightenment).

Nicko wrote:
For example, she says on page two that she knows of no instance of animals engaging in forcible intercourse in the wild as support for her assertion that it was invented as a weapon by human males. That assertion had been known to be false for a couple of decades when Brownmiller made it.

One would think, for example, that Brownmiller's alleged four years of "research" on violent sexual behaviour might have at the very least involve a glance through Patterns of Sexual Behaviour (1951). The title alone would seem to leap out at someone researching the subject.

But it is nice that you have conceded that the book is a personal polemic designed to further the author's political goals and not an objective work of scholarship designed to inform. Which is all I was really saying.

Nicko wrote:
Well, I would argue that the traditional legal relationship between a man and the women he was held responsible for was closer to that of guardian and ward rather than owner and slave, but that would seem to be extremely OT for this thread. Perhaps you could start one in which it would not be.

Pebble wrote:
Perhaps since you know so much about the subject you would care to explain why rape was prosecuted as an offence against a man's property for most of history, more recently against the state rather than the victim and the very recent processes leading to judicial reform that gave rise to the current fairer system.

Pebble wrote:
Or perhaps you feel that the current treatment of women in the more repressive islamic cultures is not a form of conscious intimidation, given that women were treated similarly in European and US law until the last centurary (even if enforcement had changed since the Enlightenment).

Pebble wrote:
So she didn't know about animal rape - therefore one can dismiss all other data - very objective.

Nicko wrote:

Pebble wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Pebble wrote:May I recommend Susan Brownmiller 'Against Our Will' for an overview of why rape victims have done particularly badly in the criminal justice system over the years.

The central thesis of which is the ludicrously bigoted idea that rape is, "a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear".

It is not a serious sociological work. It is a paranoid, hysterical polemic characterised by baseless assertions and wild speculation. As an "overview of why rape victims have done particularly badly in the criminal justice system over the years" it is all but useless.

As a means to understanding the mindset of the kind of halfwit who thinks the credibility of rape victims would be increased by reducing the burden of proof in the courts to the level of the Salem Witch Trials, it is somewhat more useful.

So she was an activist not a scientist - however at least she took the time to research the subject.

But badly, so very badly.

For example, she says on page two that she knows of no instance of animals engaging in forcible intercourse in the wild as support for her assertion that it was invented as a weapon by human males. That assertion had been known to be false for a couple of decades when Brownmiller made it.

One would think, for example, that Brownmiller's alleged four years of "research" on violent sexual behaviour might have at the very least involve a glance through Patterns of Sexual Behaviour (1951). The title alone would seem to leap out at someone researching the subject.

But it is nice that you have conceded that the book is a personal polemic designed to further the author's political goals and not an objective work of scholarship designed to inform. Which is all I was really saying.

Pebble wrote:Perhaps since you know so much about the subject you would care to explain why rape was prosecuted as an offence against a man's property for most of history and the very recent processes leading to judicial reform that gave rise to the current fairer system.

Well, I would argue that the traditional legal relationship between a man and the women he was held responsible for was closer to that of guardian and ward rather than owner and slave, but that would seem to be extremely OT for this thread. Perhaps you could start one in which it would not be.

Such a thread would also seem to be the place to ask why - if all men consciously want all women to live in constant fear of rape and benefit from the fact that they do - rape has traditionally been punished with a severity equal only to that of murder.

Among other questions.

Pebble wrote:Or perhaps you feel that the current treatment of women in the more repressive islamic cultures is not a form of conscious intimidation, given that women were treated similarly in European and US law until the last centurary (even if enforcement had changed since the Enlightenment).

In some cases, I am sure that some women in the more repressive Islamic cultures - in any culture for that matter - are consciously intimidated in some instances. On others it is far from clear that repressive and sexist treatment of women has a basis in malevolence. Most sexism against women is justified under the banner of "protecting" them.

Chivalry - the idea that men have a duty to protect women - and chauvinism - the idea that men should have authority over women - are the two sides of the same coin. They mutually support each other.

But that's probably best dealt with in another thread.

Calilasseia wrote: Ironic that the likes of Emmeline Pankhurst, through her actions, along with numerous other Suffragettes, destroyed the "delicate little flowers" myth, only for some self-declared "feminists" in the A+ camp to seek to resurrect it.

Pebble wrote:So she didn't know about animal rape - therefore one can dismiss all other data - very objective.

Pebble wrote:

Nicko wrote:Well, I would argue that the traditional legal relationship between a man and the women he was held responsible for was closer to that of guardian and ward rather than owner and slave, but that would seem to be extremely OT for this thread. Perhaps you could start one in which it would not be.

Really? So the agitation to dismantle a patriarcial societial structure is not relevant to the current backlash, where activists are happy to hurt innocent people if it gets them what they want?

He made sure my wine glass stayed full.

Briton wrote:

He made sure my wine glass stayed full.

While she was compelled to keep emptying it?

Pulsar wrote:This just gets better and better. PZ has updated his blog post:

PZ wrote:Women are still writing into me with their personal stories. This one isn’t so awful, but it’s mainly illustrative of his tactics…there’s nothing here that would form the basis of any kind of serious complaint, but most importantly, I think, it tells you exactly what kind of behavior to watch out for with him.

Michael Shermer was the guest of honor at an atheist event I attended in Fall 2006; I was on the Board of the group who hosted it. It’s a very short story: I got my book signed, then at the post-speech party, Shermer chatted with me at great length while refilling my wine glass repeatedly. I lost count of how many drinks I had. He was flirting with me and I am non-confrontational and unwilling to be rude, so I just laughed it off. He made sure my wine glass stayed full.

And that’s the entirety of my story: Michael Shermer helped get me drunker than I normally get, and was a bit flirty. I can’t recall the details because I was intoxicated. I don’t remember how I left, but I am told that a friend took me away from the situation and home from the party. Note, I’d never gotten drunk at any atheist event before; I was humiliated by having gotten so drunk and even more ashamed that my friends had to cart me off before anything happened to me.

But I had a bad taste in my mouth about Shermer’s flirtatiousness, because I’m married, and I thought he was kind of a pig. I didn’t even keep his signed book, I didn’t want it near me.

continues

He refilled her glass and flirted? That's your case? Are you kidding me???

Emmeline wrote:

natselrox wrote: For every post defaming Shermer that you can see on the internet, I can show you one calling PZ and/or the accuser a liar.

This shouldn't even BE on the internet - it's an accusation of a very serious crime which should be in the courts so the accused can get a fair trial.

Nicko wrote:

For example, she says on page two that she knows of no instance of animals engaging in forcible intercourse in the wild as support for her assertion that it was invented as a weapon by human males. That assertion had been known to be false for a couple of decades when Brownmiller made it.

Emmeline wrote:

Calilasseia wrote: Ironic that the likes of Emmeline Pankhurst, through her actions, along with numerous other Suffragettes, destroyed the "delicate little flowers" myth, only for some self-declared "feminists" in the A+ camp to seek to resurrect it.

Exactly - any adult who complains that someone kept filling their drink is absolving their own responsibility for drinking it.

Calilasseia wrote:
Someone above has already cited Roman law as an exception to the 'property' view of rape law.

The victim's consent was usually not a factor in Roman rape cases, since raptus could refer to a successful seduction as well as abduction or forced sex. What had been violated was primarily the right of the head of household (paterfamilias) to give or withhold his consent. The consequences of an abduction or an elopement were considered a private matter to be determined by the couple and their families, who might choose to recognize the marriage.

OlivierK wrote: Also, contrary to most here it seems, I think that repeatedly refilling someone's glass without asking them first and without explicitly indicating that you are doing so is a seriously creepy thing to do. To proposition someone whose glass you've been repeatedly refilling in such a manner is a seriously rapey thing to do. To do the first as part of a plan to facilitate the second is criminally predatory, regardless of the intrinsic difficulty in obtaining convictions for such criminality.

Emmeline wrote:
Exactly - any adult who complains that someone kept filling their drink is absolving their own responsibility for drinking it.