Celebrity Rapist Pt. 97 and mysoginy in popular culture.

[Rich Lyon]

And your evidence for this?

Well, it's not based on hazy recollection of an out of date book.

Rather, it is based on discussion with the senior law enforcement official in the area I live, describing the actual performance of the justice system from their perspective as the person responsible for investigating and prosecuting crime in Scotland.

I vaguely recall that research has shown that women are more likely to be given custodial sentences

It is also based on observation of the ratio of male to female in my local prison, which I visit. There are currently 5 female inmates and 140 male inmates, which the police confirms does not reflect the proportion by gender at which custodial crimes are committed in the society it serves.

I would not argue that the feminist movement gained much of its strength from the very real injustices that occurred up until a few decades ago, to which Ms Kennedy QC no doubt refers in her historical work.

However, there is a growing acceptance today, even amongst some feminists, that the success of this highly successful and politicised feminist agenda has given rise to a number of distortions, including in the criminal justice system. Some would concede that Kennedy's work doesn't accurately describe the performance of today's system.

In the context of this thread, there is a powerful argument to be made that the pendulum has swung too far in feminists favour, and that we should be vigilant to any moves to bias the crimimal justice system any further against men. None of this justifies rape, I must re-emphasise, and any properly proven case should be dealt with as severely as possible.

May I suggest you update your library? "Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture" by Katherine Young provides well researched and regarded (and contemporary!) data illustrating the distortions by gender in health care spending, adult education spending etc. and their treatment by the media, as well as biases in the criminal justice system.

Would you concede that it is possible to have a regard for data which you might find inconvenient, without that regard being driven by any particular grudge?

 

[nino_savatte]

Errrr, when have you ever heard a Buddhist claim that?

I've heard fundie muslims claim that women who are raped bring it on themselves by going out at night unaccompanied, but I've never heard Buddhists claim any such thing.

I have. Are you a Buddhist?

 

[fela fan]

Rape to my mind is the worst crime in the book. Being a man i can only begin to imagine the horrors in the years to come after the crime.

To reduce rape, some fundamental changes are required in society. Number one is getting rid of the salacious and rapacious tabloid reporting of them.

I have a book with one chapter in it analysing the language used by The Sun in reporting female victims of violent crime.

It's fascinating reading, but in a nutshell if the woman is 'blonde', 'single', 'attractive', 'wearing a mini-skirt' and so on, then she in effect asked for it, while very little in the article will be said about the man who committed the crime.

On the other hand, if the woman is married or has kids, and so on, then the man who committed the crime is a 'monster', an 'animal', and should be 'hunted down' and so on.

I'm sorry, but on the part of the journalists writing this disgraceful stuff, they surely help perpetuate this most disgusting and evil of crimes.

How society has led to false accusations of rape towards men also needs to be looked at. One place to start would be our libel laws where anyone can sue anyone for anything, and get a whole load of money so they too can buy all the consumer stuff.

The naming of the man in rape accusations seems to me entirely wrong too. If he was innocent and indeed the court rules that way, he will never ever be able to shrug off the slurs, something will always stick to him.

 

[fela fan]

I have. Are you a Buddhist?

I haven't heard it. I'm not a buddhist, but i've lived in a buddhist country for nearly 15 years. I know full well buddhists, and monks, are more than capable of rape, but i've never heard them saying they asked for it.

Having said that, the laws on rape in thailand leave britain looking very progressive indeed. Here it is perfectly legal to rape your wife. Culturally too, if the man wants sex, then the woman must accede. Due to that culture, i guess such sex might not even be viewed as rape.

You mentioned britain was a patriarchal society, i'm afraid that humans full stop are. The stories i hear from thai women over here about their treatment at the hands of their boyfriends or husbands are shocking to a westerner.

 

[nino_savatte]

I haven't heard it. I'm not a buddhist, but i've lived in a buddhist country for nearly 15 years. I know full well buddhists, and monks, are more than capable of rape, but i've never heard them saying they asked for it.

Having said that, the laws on rape in thailand leave britain looking very progressive indeed. Here it is perfectly legal to rape your wife. Culturally too, if the man wants sex, then the woman must accede. Due to that culture, i guess such sex might not even be viewed as rape.

You mentioned britain was a patriarchal society, i'm afraid that humans full stop are. The stories i hear from thai women over here about their treatment at the hands of their boyfriends or husbands are shocking to a westerner.

Britain is not the only patriarchal society and I would admit that. When I talk about Buddhists, I am not talking about monks going around raping people - but I am reminded of a case a few years ago of a Buddhist monk who did just that.

I once read or heard one or two Buddhists remark how what happens to you now is the result of something you did in a past life. In other words, rape too can be viewed in this way and it is.

 

[trashpony]

not necessarily true though is it?

perhaps of the 1649 cases which went to trial, the accused was only guilty 629 times.
You assume the accused is always guilty and are getting away with it.

I think it's a lot more likely than of the 2/3rds of cases actually making it to court (which is less than 10% of reported rapes - CPS will only proceed if they think there is an extremely strong likelihood of a conviction), only one third of them actually happened.

And that's not counting the numerous cases which never even get reported - because women don't think there's any hope of a successful prosecution and don't want to follow up the trauma of rape with the further trauma of taking it through the judicial system.

 

[belboid]

And your evidence for this?

Well, it's not based on hazy recollection of an out of date book.

Rather, it is based on discussion with the senior law enforcement official in the area I live, describing the actual performance of the justice system from their perspective as the person responsible for investigating and prosecuting crime in Scotland.

oh well - thats okay then cos senior law enforcement officers are never (mysoginistic) bigots talking shit!

However, there is a growing acceptance today, even amongst some feminists, that the success of this highly successful and politicised feminist agenda has given rise to a number of distortions, including in the criminal justice system. Some would concede that Kennedy's work doesn't accurately describe the performance of today's system.

In the context of this thread, there is a powerful argument to be made that the pendulum has swung too far in feminists favour, and that we should be vigilant to any moves to bias the crimimal justice system any further against men. None of this justifies rape, I must re-emphasise, and any properly proven case should be dealt with as severely as possible.

this is tosh - women are likely to receive a more severe custodial sentence for being found guilty of the same crime as a man. there is a split to an extent on the type of crime committed, there are some where women are less likely to be imprisoned, but not overall. How many men are in prison for not buying a TV license? v. how many women?

Would you concede that it is possible to have a regard for data which you might find inconvenient, without that regard being driven by any particular grudge?

I would have no problem - you havent quoted any yet tho.

 

[Bonfirelight]

I think it's a lot more likely than of the 2/3rds of cases actually making it to court (which is less than 10% of reported rapes - CPS will only proceed if they think there is an extremely strong likelihood of a conviction), only one third of them actually happened.

fair enough, but why do you think it's any more likely?

 

[fela fan]

I once read or heard one or two Buddhists remark how what happens to you now is the result of something you did in a past life. In other words, rape too can be viewed in this way and it is.

But wait a minute, that sounds like your interpretation of things. Did they say that rape was included in the things you deserve from a past life, or did you infer that by extension?

Fundamental to buddhism is that if you do good you receive good, and if you do bad, you receive bad. That will impact also on the next life you get as well as this one.

I'm not sure that buddhism has a provision for copping a bad lot now by having been a bastard in a previous life, but it would be a fair interpretation based on the future reincarnation stuff.

 

[belboid]

Britain is not the only patriarchal society and I would admit that. When I talk about Buddhists, I am not talking about monks going around raping people - but I am reminded of a case a few years ago of a Buddhist monk who did just that.

I once read or heard one or two Buddhists remark how what happens to you now is the result of something you did in a past life. In other words, rape too can be viewed in this way and it is.

it's more than just the odd buddhist monk - rape was a means of warfare for them in Sri Lanka (as it is in many societies), and it is far from unknown for criminals, including rapists, to avoid sentences by becoming monks. Fucking shit religion.

And that's before we get to the question of whether women must have invited it upon themselves given the whole notion of karma. Looking round the net, there seems to be very little about the causes of rape from a buddhist perspective - & what there is isn't very impressive.

See here for example.

 

[trashpony]

fair enough, but why do you think it's any more likely?

Why do you think it's more likely that 95% of women that report rape are making it up?

 

[Rich Lyon]

Rape to my mind is the worst crime in the book. Being a man i can only begin to imagine the horrors in the years to come after the crime.

I tread carefully here. My purpose is not to question the awfulness of rape, or to defend those who would commit it.

For the sake of argument, however, consider this: the essential components of rape are overwhelming force, and the violation of something which forms the core of your identity. It is so awful it can lead the victim to suicide.

Rape is truly horrifying. Question: in what way is it more horrifying, say, than being separated by force from your children? Doesn't the latter involve overwhelming (societal) force, the violation of something which forms the core of your identity, and cause horrors for years after the crime, including suicide?

Isn't the fact that we treat one as a crime, and agonise in discussion forums over the sentence construction in tabloids of how it is described, and treat the other as a woman's right and never discuss it at all, not simply evidence of just how entrenched the paradigm of women as "disadvantaged and in need of protection" is?

Perhaps you book also notes this other example of gender specific crime reporting. In a recent case in the North of England, a man was being denied even his limited rights to see his children by their mother, who had left him with their children to take up residence with a drug addict. The man tried to visit his children and was restrained by the police. The taboid reports: "Mum in desperate bid defend children" and "Man attempts kidnap".

 

[Rich Lyon]

oh well - thats okay then cos senior law enforcement officers are never (mysoginistic) bigots talking shit!

It was a woman.

 

[nino_savatte]

it's more than just the odd buddhist monk - rape was a means of warfare for them in Sri Lanka (as it is in many societies), and it is far from unknown for criminals, including rapists, to avoid sentences by becoming monks. Fucking shit religion.

And that's before we get to the question of whether women must have invited it upon themselves given the whole notion of karma. Looking round the net, there seems to be very little about the causes of rape from a buddhist perspective - & what there is isn't very impressive.

See here for example.

Thanks for that, I knew I was on the right track.

 

[trashpony]

Rape is truly horrifying. Question: in what way is it more horrifying, say, than being separated by force from your children?
Isn't the fact that we treat one as a crime, and agonise in discussion forums over the sentence construction in tabloids of how it is described, and treat the other as a woman's right and never discuss it at all, not simply evidence of just how entrenched the paradigm of women as "disadvantaged and in need of protection" is?

Why are there so many loony rights for dads people on this board? How on earth can you even begin to compare rape with women denying access to their children?

That's like comparing Margate with Bali - both beaches with sea but that's about it.

 

[belboid]

It was a woman.

irrelevant.

 

[nino_savatte]

But wait a minute, that sounds like your interpretation of things. Did they say that rape was included in the things you deserve from a past life, or did you infer that by extension?

Fundamental to buddhism is that if you do good you receive good, and if you do bad, you receive bad. That will impact also on the next life you get as well as this one.

I'm not sure that buddhism has a provision for copping a bad lot now by having been a bastard in a previous life, but it would be a fair interpretation based on the future reincarnation stuff.

Please re-read my post and have a look at belboid's post.

You have heard of Karma and how it is central to Buddhism?

You appear to have ignored my remark about the Buddhist monk who was arrested, charged and imprisoned for rape.

 

[belboid]

Facts about women in prison

* The number of women in prison increased by almost 100% during the 1990s.
* More than 60% of women prisoners are mothers; almost half of these have dependent children.
* Only 5% of the 8000 plus children whose mother is imprisoned remain in the family home.
* The offences for which women are imprisoned are less serious than those committed by men, including 149 fine defaulters in 2000.
* More than 32% of women in prison are first offenders compared to 14% of men.

Source: http://www.rethinking.org.uk/facts/system.shtml

 

[belboid]

Well no that's not true. Not having a go at women who don't fight back, cos it'd be easy to be too afraid to, but if you did there'd be evidence + a good chance of conviction.

One thing that is good is a new thing in London where women can report rape, but the cops won't say anything, just keep it on file and if another one comes in about the same bloke that'll be used.

I think it's fair enough for women's past behaviour to be evidence too - someone might make previous false accusations, for example.

mmm, for what other crimes should such behaviour be allowed to be brought up? dont you think that sets a very dangerous precedent? as someone else has said, once such a principle is established for rape, the pressure to extend it (initially for murder or GBH most likely) will be massive, and pretty soon it would likely cover all aspects of the law.

 

[hibee]

Well, appart from Glen Hoddle. I doubt very many other buddhists agreed with him, however.

He's not a buddhist, if memory serves me, he's in some sort of nutjob christian sect which believes in reincarnation.

 

[nino_savatte]

He's not a buddhist, if memory serves me, he's in some sort of nutjob christian sect which believes in reincarnation.

You're right but his variety of Xtianity is a sort of 'pick 'n' mix' of other religious ideas.

 

[Bonfirelight]

Why do you think it's more likely that 95% of women that report rape are making it up?

i dont, and more to the point that's not what the figures suggest anyway.
Using your figures, only 23% actually repoted the case anyway, so you can't expect the courts to deal with those cases. Of those only 13% went to trial. again if the perpetrator is not caught or there is a lack of evidence then there's not much the courts can do about that either. (Though this is the figure i'd like to see higher to be honest) and of those 38% were found guilty and convicted by a court of law.
to the 62% found innocent, maybe they were? maybe the women made it up maybe it was mistaken identity, maybe it was in that grey husband/wife area. no doubt some of them 'got away with it' but i've no doubt its a much smaller figure than the 95% of rapists you're alluding to.

 

[Rich Lyon]

Facts about women in prison

* The number of women in prison increased by almost 100% during the 1990s.
The proportion of women in prison as at August 2005 is 6%. This is less than the proportion in which imprisonable crimes are committed by women according to a female senior law official, who's view you have had to dismiss to maintain your argument.

* More than 60% of women prisoners are mothers; almost half of these have dependent children.
A higher proportion of mothers commit imprisonable offences than are imprisoned for them: there is no evidence that the parental status of a man influences the likelihood of imprisonment.

* Only 5% of the 8000 plus children whose mother is imprisoned remain in the family home.
Evidence of why people should not commit crime, not evidence of why women should be treated more leniently than men by the judicial system.

* The offences for which women are imprisoned are less serious than those committed by men, including 149 fine defaulters in 2000.
The number of male fine defaulters increased from 52 to 73 in 2004-2005. The number of female fine defaulters fell fom 4 to 2 in the same period.

* More than 32% of women in prison are first offenders compared to 14% of men.
That is because men are more likely to receive a custodial sentence on a repeat offence than a woman!

 

[belboid]

* The number of women in prison increased by almost 100% during the 1990s.
The proportion of women in prison as at August 2005 is 6%. This is less than the proportion in which imprisonable crimes are committed by women according to a female senior law official, who's view you have had to dismiss to maintain your argument.

point A is irrelevant (except to someone who doesnt understand statistics), point B is a load of bollocks.

* More than 60% of women prisoners are mothers; almost half of these have dependent children.
A higher proportion of mothers commit imprisonable offences than are imprisoned for them: there is no evidence that the parental status of a man influences the likelihood of imprisonment.

so? what is your point? you are simply muddling up statistics - once more, you display your lack of understanding of them.

* Only 5% of the 8000 plus children whose mother is imprisoned remain in the family home.
Evidence of why people should not commit crime, not evidence of why women should be treated more leniently than men by the judicial system.

but they arent, so your point there is just stupid.

* The offences for which women are imprisoned are less serious than those committed by men, including 149 fine defaulters in 2000.
The number of male fine defaulters increased from 52 to 73 in 2004-2005. The number of female fine defaulters fell fom 4 to 2 in the same period.

figure from where? you have countered one example (if the figure is accurate), it still leaves 98% of offences unaccounted for.

* More than 32% of women in prison are first offenders compared to 14% of men.
That is because men are more likely to receive a custodial sentence on a repeat offence than a woman!

you REALLY dont understand statistics do you?

 

[Rich Lyon]

Why are there so many loony rights for dads people on this board?

Can you tell me why it is any more appropriate to categorise anyone who takes a counter view, for any reason, as a "Loony rights for dads person" than it is to categorise a raped person as " 'blonde', 'single', 'attractive', 'wearing a mini-skirt'?

How on earth can you even begin to compare rape with women denying access to their children?

For the reasons I set out. They are both issues, for example, over which people commit suicide. Given that, your Margate example appears to me to be rather facile.

 

[redsquirrel]

maybe it was in that grey husband/wife area. .

What grey husband/wife area?
Are you stating that there is a grey area or that it is harder to get convictions in such cases?

 

[belboid]

How on earth can you even begin to compare rape with women denying access to their children?

For the reasons I set out. They are both issues, for example, over which people commit suicide. Given that, your Margate example appears to me to be rather facile.

fucking hell, I missed that before.

Wanker.

 

[Rich Lyon]

Belbiod - I believe the point at which we fail to remain civil is the point at which we concede the argument. So I will remain civil even if you feel unable to.

point A is irrelevant "Point A" is the point that a 100% rise of a very small thing is of much less significance than a 10% rise in a comparable thing. Had the prison numbers been equal, even a 10% rise in the female population would have supported your argument. They are not, and it doesn't.

point B is bollocks. So you say.

so? what is your point? There isn't really a way of putting it much simpler. Fewer women who commit imprisonable crimes are incarcerated for them. Your refusal to accept that point is not evidence of my lack of understanding of it.

but they arent, so your point there is just stupid. This would be the "Liar, liar, pants on fire" line of reasoning, would it?

figure from where? From the Home Office research development statistics "Population in custody monthly statistics - August 2005". As opposed to the subjective assertions you quote from a single issue advocacy site.

you REALLY dont understand statistics do you? Humour me and explain what you believe to be the insight you draw from the comparison of 32% of 6% of a population with 14% of the the other 94%. (Note to anyone observing this pantomime: this is going to be fun!).

Best regards

 

[belboid]

A - unattributed assertion. Contradicted by other quoted statements.

B - yes, I do. And I also say htere is absolutely no evidence that women get pregnant to avoid jail - your earlier implication) again, without any stated evidence to back it up)

C - no, that would be the 'your argument is factually inaccurate' line of reasoning.

D - thanks. I may double check that, but assuming you are right - the govt did make a case that women shouldnt be jailed for such non-payments of debts recently, I presume that this drop follows from tht. However it sytill leaves 98% of cases, as stated before.

E - it is that women are more likely to receive a custodial sentence on first offence than men are.

Simple really.

 

[Bonfirelight]

What grey husband/wife area?
Are you stating that there is a grey area or that it is harder to get convictions in such cases?

both. Whilst marital rape obviously does happen and i'd even venture to say it is almost as common as non-marital rape, it is far less clear cut to all parties, the point at which sex becomes rape.
Cases are requlary withdrawn by the victim and yes, it is undoubtedly harder to get convictions.