[amphibian]

Why do you believe a woman who is adding her signature to a letter stating a specific man didn't assault her and not believe a woman who says that that man did assault her?

Ted Bundy abducted, assaulted, and gruesomely murdered at least thirty women. He was one of the worst people ever to live. Yet he worked calmly for years with Ann Rule, a former police officer and a writer writing about the exact string of murders that he was committing.

Letters stating that this person didn't hurt that person aren't really worth that much because oftentimes only one person or a few people are hurt and not every single person ever encountered. Very few people try to hurt everyone they met or in this Kavanagh situation, every woman.

It's also really gross to organize that letter while the records are sealed.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

Silencer, on 17 September 2018 - 10:30 AM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 17 September 2018 - 10:20 AM, said:

I mean how does someone just decide to come up with a list of 65 women who say he's not raped them? Like why did they need it? I've never raped anyone so I guess I could give you a list of approx 3.5billion women who I've not raped...

I'll tell you how. It wasn't about rape originally. It was to offset the abortion thing. So I think it's an all purpose list of women who don't think he's an asshole more than anything.

I suspect that's it, in a nutshell. Here's a list of signatures, we'll apply whatever context is needed.

I hate the whole "let's find a group of people who say X didn't do a bad thing to them, therefore Y is lying about X doing said bad thing to them." It's reductive and awful.

This post has been edited by TheRetiredBridgeburner: 17 September 2018 - 11:48 AM

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 17 September 2018 - 11:32 AM, said:

Ted Bundy abducted, assaulted, and gruesomely murdered at least thirty women. He was one of the worst people ever to live. Yet he worked calmly for years with Ann Rule, a former police officer and a writer writing about the exact string of murders that he was committing.

Not only that, but they sat NEXT TO EACH OTHER. Ann Rule's cubicle neighbour was goddamned Ted Bundy, and she had no idea. Charm is a huge red flag for sociopathy.

So the fact that so many women might come out and say he (Kavanugh) didn't do anything to them...feeds that line of reasoning. He's charming to most people, and behind closed doors he CAN be capable of bad things and no one would know. This is WHY so many go unreported.

-----------

And Apt, ask yourself this: How much "evidence" is going to be available if the woman in question doesn't immediately go and have a rape kit done? The rape still occurred.

Hell, I'll do you one better...Ask yourself how many UNTESTED rape kits exist in the US law system....I can answer that, EndTheBacklog has it in the hundreds of thousands. You get that? So even in the cases reported to the police, and rape kits done...there is a backlog of hundreds of thousands of them across the USA. In some places going back to the 1970's. Because it's treated as a bottom of the list activity for some reason.

So you tell me...how a woman is meant to be firstly be brave enough to go and report the crime (so may women don't because they know they have a shot at not being believed), to a police department that even if they DO a rape kit...will probably end up in some backlog and not get tested anyways...you tell me how that seems like a situation in which it's FAIR to disbelieve a woman who says she was assaulted.

[Tiste Simeon]

Ooh! Ooh! Don't forget the absolute stains of humanity who say things like "no such thing as rape" or "you obviously wanted it you slut" and other such things.

[amphibian]

Hang on a bit, all. I think being a bit calm when discussing things can avoid anything like putting words into Apt's mouth about what he believes regarding assault and credibility.

It's been clear to me that he's not one of those people who don't believe these assaults never happen or that women lie in significant numbers about this.

[Aptorian]

QuickTidal, on 17 September 2018 - 01:47 PM, said:

amphibian, on 17 September 2018 - 11:32 AM, said:

Ted Bundy abducted, assaulted, and gruesomely murdered at least thirty women. He was one of the worst people ever to live. Yet he worked calmly for years with Ann Rule, a former police officer and a writer writing about the exact string of murders that he was committing.

Not only that, but they sat NEXT TO EACH OTHER. Ann Rule's cubicle neighbour was goddamned Ted Bundy, and she had no idea. Charm is a huge red flag for sociopathy.

So the fact that so many women might come out and say he (Kavanugh) didn't do anything to them...feeds that line of reasoning. He's charming to most people, and behind closed doors he CAN be capable of bad things and no one would know. This is WHY so many go unreported.

-----------

And Apt, ask yourself this: How much "evidence" is going to be available if the woman in question doesn't immediately go and have a rape kit done? The rape still occurred.

Hell, I'll do you one better...Ask yourself how many UNTESTED rape kits exist in the US law system....I can answer that, EndTheBacklog has it in the hundreds of thousands. You get that? So even in the cases reported to the police, and rape kits done...there is a backlog of hundreds of thousands of them across the USA. In some places going back to the 1970's. Because it's treated as a bottom of the list activity for some reason.

So you tell me...how a woman is meant to be firstly be brave enough to go and report the crime (so may women don't because they know they have a shot at not being believed), to a police department that even if they DO a rape kit...will probably end up in some backlog and not get tested anyways...you tell me how that seems like a situation in which it's FAIR to disbelieve a woman who says she was assaulted.

None of these problems you outline change the fact that I don't want a system, or a society, where you can name and shame somebody without proof.

I don't care if you're a man or a woman, if it doesn't scare you that you might be accused of being a rapist (or a pedophile, or a racist, or a Justin Bieber fan, etc.) with out there being a burden of proof - you're naive.

The fact that people in this thread and people on SOME already talk about Kavanaugh as if he's already proven guilty is disturbing to me.

You don't right a societal wrong by writing a blank check for anybody who may or may not have been raped.

It's not Kavanaughs fault that the system sucks. Well, actually, it may soon be but...

[QuickTidal]

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 02:41 PM, said:

None of these problems you outline change the fact that I don't want a system, or a society, where you can name and shame somebody without proof.

And I'm asking you what if their is no viable proof, or the cops have the proof and it sits for decades in a pile of untested kits, or what if the assault didn't include something testable in a kit at all? The woman just has to suck it up and move on?

And I think others already pointed out that this isn't really about a legal thing. This is about the view of a man who is about to be put onto to the highest court of the land in the States...who may very well have done something truly horrible...and since there probably isn't any real proof of it...everyone just sucks it up and lets him on the court. If you can't see what's wrong with that, I can't help you. Not especially because there are probably hundreds of judges worthy of the position who don't have shady pasts of possible assaults, and lets not forget OUTRIGHT proven lying on Kavanugh's part.

Of course it should scare people that accusations can have an effect on some infinitesimal amount of innocent people....but again her we sit and decide that the what? 96% of women in these situations either need inviolable proof, or they are not believed. Because that 4% is more worthy than the 96%...I guess?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 17 September 2018 - 03:13 PM

[Aptorian]

QuickTidal, on 17 September 2018 - 03:11 PM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 02:41 PM, said:

None of these problems you outline change the fact that I don't want a system, or a society, where you can name and shame somebody without proof.

And I'm asking you what if their is no viable proof, or the cops have the proof and it sits for decades in a pile of untested kits, or what if the assault didn't include something testable in a kit at all? The woman just has to suck it up and move on?

And I think others already pointed out that this isn't really about a legal thing. This is about the view of a man who is about to be put onto to the highest court of the land in the States...who may very well have done something truly horrible...and since there probably isn't any real proof of it...everyone just sucks it up and lets him on the court. If you can't see what's wrong with that, I can't help you. Not especially because there are probably hundreds of judges worthy of the position who don't have shady pasts of possible assaults, and lets not forget OUTRIGHT proven lying on Kavanugh's part.

Of course it should scare people that accusations can have an effect on some infinitesimal amount of innocent people....but again her we sit and decide that the what? 96% of women in these situations either need inviolable proof, or they are not believed. Because that 4% is more worthy than the 96%...I guess?

Like with Worry, I think we're just on opposite sides on this (and I am obviously right).

That the system is fucked should not be the accused's problem. Fix the system, don't fuck over the untried individual. Legally or publically.

Otherwise that 96% statistic you quote will change dramatically.

One thing is for rape kits to go untested another is to report a crime weeks, months or years after the fact. I don't care how sensitive the subject is, whether it's rape or violence or theft the longer you wait the less chance there is of the crime being solved or tried. That's not a rape issue that's just basic logic and public funding.

[QuickTidal]

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

One thing is for rape kits to go untested another is to report a crime weeks, months or years after the fact. I don't care how sensitive the subject is, whether it's rape or violence or theft the longer you wait the less chance there is of the crime being solved or tried. That's not a rape issue that's just basic logic and public funding.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never met anyone who's suffered an assault and spoken with them? Feel free to correct me.

I don't mean that to sound callous, but I can't imagine anyone who's spoken to survivors having that view.

You need to understand assault from a mental POV before you can speak on the speed at which a victim of one reports it and why or why not. Until you do that, your comment in that regard is full of privilege and inaccurate assessment.

And The Bottom line: She's not trying to send Kavanaugh to court to pay for the crime she accuses him of (it's too late for that)...she's trying to help stop him ascending to the highest court in the land because she feels she has proof of him being unfit (to go along with his proven lying; if we're counting reasons).

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 17 September 2018 - 03:31 PM

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 17 September 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

...whether it's rape or violence or theft the longer you wait the less chance there is of the crime being solved or tried. That's not a rape issue that's just basic logic and public funding.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never met anyone who's suffered an assault and spoken with them? Feel free to correct me.

I don't mean that to sound callous, but I can't imagine anyone who's spoken to survivors having that view.

You need to understand assault from a mental POV before you can speak on the speed at which a victim of one reports it and why or why not. Until you do that, your comment in that regard is full of privilege and inaccurate assessment.

And The Bottom line: She's not trying to send Kavanaugh to court to pay for the crime she accuses him of (it's too late for that)...she's trying to help stop him ascending to the highest court in the land because she feels she has proof of him being unfit (to go along with his proven lying; if we're counting reasons).

The thing is AG, QT is right... delay or lack of reporting absolutely utterly very much IS a rape/sexual assault issue. The basic logic and public funding angles are secondary to the nature of the crime and response to it. Victims do, for a variety of reasons, not go to the police, and then a decade later the possible rapist remerges within their view and they decide to try to deal with what happened.

[QuickTidal]

And Kavanaugh's alleged co-conspirator and friend who in the room while Ford says she was assaulted...is one of those dudes who tries to discredit rape allegations, and minimize the use of the word and the description to how it applies....and no amount of him deleting his shady AF online presence to hide that fact stopped internet sleuths from outing him.

https://splinternews...-try-1829101148

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 17 September 2018 - 03:47 PM

[Aptorian]

QuickTidal, on 17 September 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

One thing is for rape kits to go untested another is to report a crime weeks, months or years after the fact. I don't care how sensitive the subject is, whether it's rape or violence or theft the longer you wait the less chance there is of the crime being solved or tried. That's not a rape issue that's just basic logic and public funding.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never met anyone who's suffered an assault and spoken with them? Feel free to correct me.

I don't mean that to sound callous, but I can't imagine anyone who's spoken to survivors having that view.

You need to understand assault from a mental POV before you can speak on the speed at which a victim of one reports it and why or why not. Until you do that, your comment in that regard is full of privilege and inaccurate assessment.

And The Bottom line: She's not trying to send Kavanaugh to court to pay for the crime she accuses him of (it's too late for that)...she's trying to help stop him ascending to the highest court in the land because she feels she has proof of him being unfit (to go along with his proven lying; if we're counting reasons).

Please.

I've both had a girlfriend who was raped and a colleague who was accused of sexual harassment who was definitely innocent. So I understand both sides of how this may go down. And not really either because that thinking is reductive.

I hate the "You don't know unless X" argument. Empathy isn't transmitted through experience. Not alone anyway.

You can keep pleading the necessity of understanding the plight of a woman whose been wronged but the emotions of the victim does not change the basics for me.

If I understand the arguments in this thread you're all arguing that it's better to judge the accused whether they can be proved guilty or not, than allow the accusation to go unanswered . You want to destroy the rape culture by sacrificing the few. QTs 4%.

You're basically arguing that suspicion is all the proof you need. That's some totalitarian thinking in my book. You're basically willing to burn the witch to save the village before you've done the drowning test. Which makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Edit: Just again to reiterate, because the subject is sensitive, I'm not saying rape allegations aren't serious. I'm not saying victims should be silenced but I do urge people to try to stay neutral when evidence us lacking and there's a political motivation.

This post has been edited by Alternative Goose: 17 September 2018 - 08:23 PM

[D'rek]

QuickTidal, on 17 September 2018 - 03:30 PM, said:

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 03:24 PM, said:

One thing is for rape kits to go untested another is to report a crime weeks, months or years after the fact. I don't care how sensitive the subject is, whether it's rape or violence or theft the longer you wait the less chance there is of the crime being solved or tried. That's not a rape issue that's just basic logic and public funding.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never met anyone who's suffered an assault and spoken with them? Feel free to correct me.

I don't mean that to sound callous, but I can't imagine anyone who's spoken to survivors having that view.

You need to understand assault from a mental POV before you can speak on the speed at which a victim of one reports it and why or why not. Until you do that, your comment in that regard is full of privilege and inaccurate assessment.

Interesting perspective. Personally, every victim of rape or assault survivor I have known has been quite aware and rational about the fact that evidence does become much harder to collect over time. It's frustrating that the room was remodeled a year later, that the taxi company's payment records only go back 5 years, etc, but I've yet to see that frustration turn to a delusional belief that evidence can simply be conjured forth with no regard to the passage of time.

Sometimes there is still enough evidence to secure a conviction, and that's great. Sometimes there was enough evidence and it was supposed to have been saved/filed but wasn't - e.g. rape kits of police files lost, etc - and that's absolutely rageworthy and needs to be fixed. Sometimes you don't know if there's enough evidence or not. And sometimes a woman comes forward with her accusation already knowing there won't be enough evidence at this time, anymore, to get that conviction, she knows it, but she's doing it anyway because doing so is an important act of courage and progress for herself, and also because the accusation alone may help others. Some also choose not to make an accusation, and that's their choice, too.

But I've yet to ever meet a rape survivor who thinks that the mere act of making a public accusation will override common sense and rewind the clock. I don't mean that to sound callous, either, but I can't imagine anyone who's spoken to survivors having *that* view, either... or that view of them.

[worry]

Apt, you seem to be arguing from a theoretical Earth where men face consequences for mistreating and abusing women. The Earth we live on, by and large, women face consequences for even mentioning the ways men have mistreated and abusing them. That's my whole issue with arguments that reduce these situations to he-said-she-said: suggesting that's the neutral stance, pending further review, is pure make-believe. You talk about 'innocent' men being sacrificed. Guilty men don't even face consequences. You're trying to correct for a problem that doesn't exist, when the very opposite problem dominates. Women aren't just doubted, aren't just called liars, they are punished for coming forward with the truth about what men have done to them. Regularly. Constantly. Near-universally.

"Believe women" isn't a mantra about how all men are rapists, or that no women are liars, or that we should ignore calls for evidence. It's not even an argument. It's a counter-argument against a status quo that already believes men regardless, that already forgives men regardless, that despises women as either liars or deserving of what's inflicted upon them. Believing women is the corrective to norms that are so skewed, so disproportionately out of whack, that every point you're making they already know by heart, cuz they've heard it a thousand times from a thousand men already. The exhaustion that comes with just living day by day in a world that doubts you as a matter of course, if you want to talk about things it's impossible to truly understand, start with that.

[Tiste Simeon]

I'm all for giving him a chance to defend himself but if this is the case he should be nowhere near the highest court of the land in a position to literally make laws.

The Reps screamed when the Dems tried to put their guy in before the election, yet now they don't seem worried.

Oh wait. I forgot. They're all massive hypocrites and terrible people.

[worry]

Kavanaugh already denied it ever happened. What I know for a fact about him is that he's a proven liar and he doesn't respect the sovereignty of women's bodies. What I know about his accuser is that her story has remained consistent over the years, it has come up in her private therapy sessions over the years and is corroborated by her husband and her therapist, the incident derailed years of her life early on, and that she's lived a relatively uncontroversial life in all other ways to this point. I also know that women who make these accusations are vastly more likely to be telling the truth than not, that the consequences to themselves are heinous and harsh across the board but incredibly exacerbated when the accused is a powerful public figure, and that this woman in particular has been very deliberative in her decision to come forward. I believe I have enough information to personally decide what I think is more likely.


I also know that the consequences to Kavanaugh have been: nothing so far, but potentially a slight increase from 0% to >0% chance that he won't get to become one of the 9 most powerful judges on earth, and will thus have to settle for keeping his six-figure-earning lifetime position as a slightly lower tiered federal circuit judge, and so DJT might have to nominate a slightly different version of the same basic guy. AKA the Great Democrat Conspiracy.

[worry]

Looks like Kavanaugh is also getting a $1.5 million ad campaign to defend him from this accusation, and $3.5 million more for general advocacy, so at least somebody in the world is looking out for him: Link

[worry]

That's interesting. I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing or has any hope of affecting the outcome of the vote. Most of all I wonder if GOP senators will treat the allegation with the gravity it deserves. Perhaps something like the nuanced discussion we've been having in this thread.


Just kidding!

[worry]

I also wanna say, even though I've been hard on Apt's opinions -- and he on mine, since we're having an honest disagreement -- I don't equate his argument with the much worse ones dominating American conservative discourse right now, that are essentially "boys will be boys" or "you can't judge a man by the mischief he got into at age 17." Apt hasn't been remotely dismissive along those lines. But part of my argument is that because that abhorrent take is so dominant, so mainstream here already, so part and parcel to the people in power's worldview, Apt's milder "we have to wait for all the facts" isn't even necessary. We are so obscenely far past that threshold that what might make sense in a vacuum just doesn't ring true or even relevant to me in the real world. I also believe that since it seems reasonable (and perhaps would be in that vacuum), it does a lot of cover (however inadvertently) for the much worse and absolutely dominant status quo: women aren't fully people, and their well-being is worth less than a man's ego. I hope that makes sense, makes it seem less "crazy pills," whether you ultimately agree or disagree.

[QuickTidal]

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

Please.

I've both had a girlfriend who was raped

(This is why I said you could correct me, as I don't know your particulars, so thanks for setting me straight)

But did you tell her how she should feel about it, and how fast she should report it? Did you dictate to her the "rules" about how to go about that from your male perspective?

That's what I'm saying. The same way that I could never know what the life experiences are of POC who experience systemic racism, no more can I assume to know what the life experience and mental state of a woman who has been assaulted and why or why not she would not report it immediately. I can LISTEN to them, and try to understand, but I will never ever know directly simply because it's an impossibility. As such, any dictations I make as a man about sexual assault of women is going to be operating from a place of either mistake or ignorance. That's what I'm getting at with what I said. That because everyone's experience and mental state will be different and informed by a myriad of variables...I CANNOT in good conscience stand aside and say "Oh, well you didn't report it to the police right away, so that's a problem"...

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

and a colleague who was accused of sexual harassment who was definitely innocent.

Exceptions, rules, and all that.

I also know someone who was falsely accused, and I also know someone who didn't SEE their actions as harassment....even though I and their victim could see it that way. I don't think any of that disputes the fact that hundreds of thousands of assaults occur annually, and tonnes of them go unreported.

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

I hate the "You don't know unless X" argument. Empathy isn't transmitted through experience. Not alone anyway.

I'm not speaking about merely empathy. I'm speaking about internally experiencing things as a gender. In this way as I said above, you cannot (as a man) know the experience of assault in that fashion. Therefore any "advice" you might offer them begins from a place of ignorance (not intentional ignorance, but natural) simply because you can't put yourselves in their shoes. This is not the argument of "Oh, I'm not a director so I can't complain about a director I don't like since I don't direct things".....this is "I can't be a woman...so maybe I'd be better off to listen and not dictate"

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

You can keep pleading the necessity of understanding the plight of a woman whose been wronged but the emotions of the victim does not change the basics for me.

The basics of what exactly?

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

If I understand the arguments in this thread you're all arguing that it's better to judge the accused whether they can be proved guilty or not, than allow the accusation to go unanswered . You want to destroy the rape culture by sacrificing the few. QTs 4%.

Not at all. Innocent people are innocent. No doubt they should remain that way. The problem lies in the fact that we exist in a culture that frequently doesn't believe women, would rather give the benefit of the doubt to the man accused, that reporting it has quite often in the past shown that women are disbelieved, and if they can't produce proof they are dragged and dragged and dragged through various forms of muck. I have a family member who was assaulted by two assholes in late high school, since there was no proof and she was too afraid to go to the police right away, there was no kit done...and then it was two guys word against hers. They got off completely, not even a slap on the wrist. This family member was disbelieved by the very people she went to about it (we are also talking days, not weeks), the parents of the accused, and friends of the accused (they were super popular). This sent her into a massive depression that even 6 or 7 years after the fact she is STILL climbing out of. I know what happened to this family member, and I know she'd never lie. Everyone else in the orbit of this believes she's a lying woman seeking attention.

THAT is the world we largely live in. And THAT is why so often these crimes go unreported immediately after the fact. People who know this family member who might be assaulted in the future would look at her story as a cautionary tale against reporting it. That's not a good thing. The lesson should be to report it immediately. But I'm not about to tell someone whose life experience I don't know and can never know...about how to feel.

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

You're basically arguing that suspicion is all the proof you need.

No. A woman's claim of being assaulted is NOT suspicion. It's her claim. Yes, it's best to have proof, but in these situations proof can be tenuous since the nature of the act allows it to be. There are no fingerprints to gather, and anything but biological evidence can be a non-stater. In fact, even biological evidence can prove unhelpful, as the man can just claim the act was consensual. It's always going to devolve into he said she said. So where do we go from there?

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

You're basically willing to burn the witch to save the village before you've done the drowning test. Which makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I'm saying that these situations are not easy to deal with, and it's dismissive to say "Well, it's her word against his, and if he's not guilty then he's had his good name sullied, or he's being unfairly prosecuted". Instead of coming at the position of "why would she accuse him if he did nothing?"

Again we come to the fact that I have to wonder in what world where women in great numbers are inventing tales of assault to drag themselves through the muck? That seems so unbelievable to me. What gain is there is that?

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

Edit: Just again to reiterate, because the subject is sensitive, I'm not saying rape allegations aren't serious. I'm not saying victims should be silenced

I hope I never implied you were saying this. I certainly didn't think so, and if implied that, I apologize. I know you were never saying this.

Alternative Goose, on 17 September 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

but I do urge people to try to stay neutral when evidence us lacking and there's a political motivation.

Can you explain to me what motivation Ford has, political or otherwise, to tar and feather an old high school student and his friend with allegations? Is she running for office? Is she trying to be famous? Isn't she just a college professor? What gain is in it for her to drag out an old wound of assault that she's clearly been dealing with for years?