Celebrity Rapist Pt. 97 and mysoginy in popular culture.

[Rich Lyon]

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 .

Now. Why would a Government (one with a Minister for Women, but without a Minister for Men, for example) do that, I wonder? I would be genuinely interested in yours (or anyone elses) views of the case for making an exception on the basis of gender for punishment of non-payment of fines.

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

Sit down with a cup of tea and a pencil and paper and think this one through, will you, before you embarrass yourself any further. The thought experiment is to start with a prison population in which the male/female ratio of first offences is 50/50 and there is an equal likelyhood to re-offend. On each subsequent re-offence, award a custodial sentence to the male and a non-custodial sentence to the female, simulating a cultural bias against males. Over a period of time, the male/female first offence ratio of the imprisoned population will fall, and the proportion of males to females will [edited]rise, which is exactly the situation you observe. This will happen even if the starting ratio is lower, and the likelyhood to re-offend is not equal (the time constant to reach a given propotion will vary instead).

You have, I'm afraid, shot yourself well and truly in the foot with this ill-thought through appeal to statistics.

 

[trashpony]

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Cases are requlary withdrawn by the victim and yes, it is undoubtedly harder to get convictions.

No - it's not less clear cut to both parties. The point at which sex becomes rape is the point at which the woman says 'no' and the man carries on regardless.

It's quite simple - and extremely clear cut in my book.

 

[belboid]

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 .

Now. Why would a Government (one with a Minister for Women, but without a Minister for Men, for example) do that, I wonder? I would be genuinely interested in yours (or anyone elses) views of the case for making an exception on the basis of gender for punishment of non-payment of fines.

I'm glad you are making your point clearer - you really are doing yourself no favours at all! They responded because there were too many women being sent to jail for the crime of being poor.

And why do you think a government might need a womens minister but not a mens one? Bloody feminists have taken over the asylum havent they!

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

Sit down with a cup of tea and a pencil and paper and think this one through, will you, before you embarrass yourself any further. The thought experiment is to start with a prison population in which the male/female ratio of first offences is 50/50 and there is an equal likelyhood to re-offend. On each subsequent re-offence, award a custodial sentence to the male and a non-custodial sentence to the female. Over a period of time, the male/female first offence ratio of the imprisoned population will fall, and the proportion of males to females will [edited]rise, which is exactly the situation you observe. This will happen even if the starting ratio is lower, and the likelyhood to re-offend is not equal (the time constant to reach a given propotion will vary instead).

You have, I'm afraid, shot yourself well and truly in the foot with this ill-thought through appeal to statistics.

lol - but nearly all your starting premises (pre-judgements one might say) are false, so your argument is fallacious.

 

[trashpony]

Rich Lyon:

The only area in the world where women have the upper hand over men is our ability to bear children. That's it.

You clearly have some axe to grind over this fact and, as result, have been spewing some of the most misguided and ill-thought out misogynist claptrap I've ever had the misfortune to read.

Ex denying you access to your kids? I'm not fucking surprised.

 

[tbaldwin]

Oh yes, I'm very happy

If an allegation comes down to one persons word against another, there isn't a great deal a court can do ...Unless you prefer innocent people being jailed to guilty people walking free.

But my argeument was based on probabilties. If 3 different women accuse a man of raping them, what chance do you think there is that he is innocent.
I think the Jury should be told and that all such cases should go before a jury.
There never can be a foolproof system of justice(mistakes can be made under any system) but at the moment the CJS is a sick joke...
Too many rapists are going free.

 

[Rich Lyon]

They responded because there were too many women being sent to jail for the crime of being poor.

There were 4. Now there are 2. Conversely, 73 men - 21 more than in the previous period - went to jail for the same offence.

Set aside for a moment the fact that neither men nor women are being sent to prison for being (involuntarily) poor, but for not paying a fine for a crime they have (voluntarily) committed.

Once again - what is the basis for making a distinction on gender whether to imprison? Is it more legitimate for a woman not to pay a fine than a man? Why? Is there some moral difference between poverty as experienced by a woman, and poverty as experienced by a man?

but nearly all your starting premises (pre-judgements one might say) are false, so your argument is fallacious. Again, set aside that I've cited starting conditions, not starting premises. The premise is an elementary, mechanistic phenomenon accessible through 3rd year school maths - I don't need you to agree to it for it to be true any more than I need you to agree the square root of 9.

The debate is about whether there is a cultural bias against men in society that would result in more men than women going back to prison on a repeat offence. And you have more or less accepted that that is the case, both in the statistics you have mis-quoted, and in the point above about Governments electing to intervene in the judicial process on the basis of gender.

 

[Rich Lyon]

trashpony

You clearly have some axe to grind over this fact Could you expand on what has led you to this conclusion? I hope, in your reply, for there to be more substance to your argument than simply that I have chosen to challenge some principles that feminists would prefer were regarded as unquestionable...

ill-thought out misogynist claptrap Again, some examples would be illuminating. As far as I am aware, my contributions have to explore differences in treatment between males and females, and not to discount or denigrate the specific experiences of women.

Ex denying you access to your kids? Err, no. I hope not all of your assumptions are as ill-judged.

 

[belboid]

you are doing very badly now arent you?

The drop to 4 was from 150 odd, you are trying to distort figures to back up your nonsense. Many of those original fines were for non-payment of TV licenses! Sentencing is now based upon supposed level of seriousness of non-payment, not simply on the basis of non-payment (ie neither man nor woman would be sent to prison for non-payment of a TV license fee, but would for a fine for a serious offence). So your point is both dishonest and wrong.

Secondly you do not understand what 'premise' is do you? But lets skip over that and take up your point. Oh, hang on, you didnt actually make one! Apart from an idiotic point which has NO basis in reality. Evidence indicates women are less likely to re-offend, hence they are even less likely to be sent back to prison for a repeart offence. Of course in your twisted world, that means that there is a systematic bias towards women.

 

[Streathamite]

Now. Why would a Government (one with a Minister for Women, but without a Minister for Men, for example) do that, I wonder?

blimey.
It might just possibly be because, historically speaking, and by and large, every other minister has been effectively a minister for men, by dint of their jobs and our society?

 

[detective-boy]

But my argeument was based on probabilties. If 3 different women accuse a man of raping them, what chance do you think there is that he is innocent.

You are Roy Meadows and I claim my £5!

 

[trashpony]

Not to discount or denigrate the specific experiences of women.

Okay then - here's some things you've said which are total bollocks and demonstrate your utter misogyny:

1. a man is more likely to be awarded a custodial sentence than a woman on the same evidence, and sentences for men average 10 times longer than for women for the same crimes
2. It is fairly common practice for a woman to get herself impregnated in between commiting a crime and being sentenced
3. in what way is rape more horrifying than being separated by force from your children?
4. the debate is whether there is a cultural bias against men in society

There's no evidence for your first two statements, the third one is an utterly facile comparison to make (I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you'd been through a bitter custody battle - hoping there was some reason that you're such a misogynist cock). And finally, the debate isn't over whether there is a cultural bias against men in society. It's about rape. And the media's prurient interest in it and the declining conviction rate. You're trying to shift it so you can bang on about your own fucked-up interpretations about life.

Here's a few facts for you:
Average hourly earnings for women working full-time are 18% lower than for men working full-time, and for women working part-time hourly earnings are 40% lower.Only 18% of MPs are women.

Given these, how can you possibly justify asserting that society is biased against men?

 

[redsquirrel]

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.

Bullshit, no means no (like trashpony has already pointed out).

 

[tbaldwin]

You are Roy Meadows and I claim my £5!

Who is Roy Meadows?

 

[Bonfirelight]

Bullshit, no means no (like trashpony has already pointed out).

yes, eloquently put. obviously no means no as far as the victim is concerned, to the perpetrator and often the courts though, no sadly isn't enough to convince them what happens is rape per se.
Anyway, this is for another discussion.

The original point i made to trashpony, before you made a strawman from my post, was that its unfair to assume every person accused of rape being brought before the court is guilty.

 

[belboid]

[roy meadows is] the disgraced peadiatrician whose testimony (based on the same logic as yours - if a woman has had three babies die from causes unknown then she must have killed them) caused dozens of women to be falsely locked up.

 

[trashpony]

The original point i made to trashpony, before you made a strawman from my post, was that its unfair to assume every person accused of rape being brought before the court is guilty.

Just 5.3 per cent of rape allegations ended in a guilty verdict, according to the latest Home Office figures. And more than a third of cases sent to the Crown Court collapsed before the defendant reached the dock, often because victims were unable to face the ordeal of testifying.

FFS - I give up with people like you. You can throw as many statistics and facts and you're always going to bleat on about some men being wrongly convicted. Show me one of those and I'll show you at least ten more who are walking the streets because they got away with it. Like the bloke who raped me.

 

[Rich Lyon]

[belboid]: "you are doing very badly now arent you?"

Heh heh. I love the sound of hollow bluster.

Apart from an idiotic point which has NO basis in reality. Evidence indicates women are less likely to re-offend,.

The evidence you cite is based on the characteristics of the prison population after a decision has been made whether to imprison or not, which you concede is subject to government interference. Such evidence can support no conclusion about the likelyhood of a given group to re-offend - the proportion of first-timers could be low because women are less likely to re-offend. It could equally likely be low because repeat-offenders are not given prison sentences. Your evidence, by itself, is not sufficient to allow a determination of which is the cause.

However, you dismiss evidence available from before a decision is made whether to imprison or not, which does allow a determination of which is the case, as having no basis in reality (other than it coming from a senior, female member of the law enforcement community). That evidence confirms that repeat-offender ratios amongst females in prison are low because female repeat offenders are treated more leniently than their male counterparts during sentencing.

I really don't need you to accept these points - they more or less stand for themselves, and aren't particularly difficult or problematic anyway. I imagine the thread starter will be getting irritated at how far we have drifted from the original thesis - I think we have established that "mysoginy in popular culture" is at best a complex proposition.

 

[Bonfirelight]

Just 5.3 per cent of rape allegations ended in a guilty verdict, according to the latest Home Office figures. And more than a third of cases sent to the Crown Court collapsed before the defendant reached the dock, often because victims were unable to face the ordeal of testifying.

FFS - I give up with people like you. You can throw as many statistics and facts and you're always going to bleat on about some men being wrongly convicted. Show me one of those and I'll show you at least ten more who are walking the streets because they got away with it. Like the bloke who raped me.

the blackstone ratio proved then.
Better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man.

re the statistics, i was using your original figures

of 50000 estimated rapes - 11867 were reported (23%)
of 11867 reported - 1640 went to to court (13%)
of 1649 court cases - 629 got convictions (38%)

 

[tbaldwin]

Just 5.3 per cent of rape allegations ended in a guilty verdict, according to the latest Home Office figures. And more than a third of cases sent to the Crown Court collapsed before the defendant reached the dock, often because victims were unable to face the ordeal of testifying.

FFS - I give up with people like you. You can throw as many statistics and facts and you're always going to bleat on about some men being wrongly convicted. Show me one of those and I'll show you at least ten more who are walking the streets because they got away with it. Like the bloke who raped me.

This contribution might hopefully make people think a bit about what they are posting on this thread. Loads of Women have been raped and seen the rapist go unpunished,and that is a total disgrace.

 

[belboid]

[belboid]: "you are doing very badly now arent you?"

Heh heh. I love the sound of hollow bluster.

Apart from an idiotic point which has NO basis in reality. Evidence indicates women are less likely to re-offend,.

The evidence you cite is based on the characteristics of the prison population after a decision has been made whether to imprison or not, which you concede is subject to government interference. Such evidence can support no conclusion about the likelyhood of a given group to re-offend - the proportion of first-timers could be low because women are less likely to re-offend. It could equally likely be low because repeat-offenders are not given prison sentences. Your evidence, by itself, is not sufficient to allow a determination of which is the cause.

However, you dismiss evidence available from before a decision is made whether to imprison or not, which does allow a determination of which is the case, as having no basis in reality (other than it coming from a senior, female member of the law enforcement community). That evidence confirms that repeat-offender ratios amongst females in prison are low because female repeat offenders are treated more leniently than their male counterparts during sentencing.

I really don't need you to accept these points - they more or less stand for themselves, and aren't particularly difficult or problematic anyway. I imagine the thread starter will be getting irritated at how far we have drifted from the original thesis - I think we have established that "mysoginy in popular culture" is at best a complex proposition.

you havent provided ANY evidence for your suppossed conversation with one person. Even if you had a tape of it, it would still only be one persons assertion. Where is your evidence? You have none. you even accept this and agree that you have no evidence other than one persons word! All your bullshit (like the other examples that have been quoted back at you) you are now choosing to ignore, and are resting on one, just one, supposed conversation.

You have established only your inability to argue consisently, and to understand the meaning of common words.

 

[redsquirrel]

This contribution might hopefully make people think a bit about what they are posting on this thread. Loads of Women have been raped and seen the rapist go unpunished,and that is a total disgrace.

And who (except for maybe Rich Lyon) is disputing this. You really are just like Pbman, everything is either black or white. You have concerns about innocent people getting convicted and suddenly you love rapists.

 

[tbaldwin]

And who (except for maybe Rich Lyon) is disputing this. You really are just like Pbman, everything is either black or white. You have concerns about innocent people getting convicted and suddenly you love rapists.

What the fuck are you on about. Send me a pm and stop derailing threads with your attempts to show how much more clever than me you are...

 

[Rich Lyon]

[Trashpony:]

Are you using "misogynist" in any principled way? "Hatred of women" is a fairly clear concept. I see nothing from the examples you offer providing evidence that I harbour hatred for women and wonder whether you are perhaps (as your mistaken assumptions so far suggest) making more of an assumption than is warranted?

There's no evidence for your first two statements In fact there is the evidence from a senior law enforcement representative, who is a woman, describing the current constraints under which she is obliged to make recommendations for prosecutions. I am quoting her more or less directly. (Would she also be a "misogynist cock", in your robust argot?)

the third one is an utterly facile comparison to make (I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you'd been through a bitter custody battle) My friend committed suicide following the enforced separation from his children by his former wife. I have been absolutely scrupulous not to denigrate the horror of rape and you have no reason to conclude that I am misogynist in comparing a horror perpetrated by some men on women that can lead to suicide, and a horror perpetrated by some women on men that can lead to suicide. What would your basis be for differentiating between the two, and why should inviting you to do so lead you to conclude that I hated women?

hoping there was some reason that you're such a misogynist cock.

How interesting. Why, do you think, is it acceptable for you to label me with with the vulgar term for the male genitals, when the act of labeling you with the vulger term for female genitals would have me banned from the forum? Would you concede that this is perhaps an area other than child birth in which women have "the upper hand", and that once you accept the principle there is more than one area, you should accept there may be many?

And finally, the debate isn't over whether there is a cultural bias against men in society. It's about rape. And the media's prurient interest in it and the declining conviction rate. You're trying to shift it so you can bang on about your own fucked-up interpretations about life.

Excuse me? Are you trying to restrict what might be covered in the debate to only those aspects that are convenient to your point, to dismiss any outside those contraints as "fucked-up interpretations", and anyone who holds them as a woman hater? Some might interpret that as evidence of lack of confidence in your position ...

Given these [facts], how can you possibly justify asserting that society is biased against men?

How amusing you berate me for shifting the thread, then shift the thread. Oh, I'd love to do facts with you. But perhaps in another thread - care to start one?

 

[belboid]

ignorant, imbecilic cunt. no need to say any more, I think everyone can clearly see what an obnoxious ignorant fool you are.

 

[trashpony]

re the statistics, i was using your original figures

of 50000 estimated rapes - 11867 were reported (23%)
of 11867 reported - 1640 went to to court (13%)
of 1649 court cases - 629 got convictions (38%)

What you're doing is twisting the numbers to make your case. Yes, 38% of the cases that went to court resulted in a conviction. But there is a 5% conviction rate overall. Which is the lowest it's been for years. Presumably because utter cunts like you sit on juries.

 

[Rich Lyon]

ignorant, imbecilic cunt. no need to say any more, I think everyone can clearly see what an obnoxious ignorant fool you are.

Not possible to say more, apparantly - looks like you are working yourself up to a stroke. I'd better retire, if only out of regard for your health. You know, it really ought to be possible to discuss these things, and even disagree on them, without being so uncivilised.

Best wishes

 

[belboid]

its perfectly possible with people who arent ignorant lying cunts.

 

[blamblam]

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.

On the do you believe in Karma thread (you can search it), the buddhist poster Karmabum thought that, and a few others were pretty borderline. I've worked with a buddhist who thought that too. Fucking hippies

 

[neilh]

ignorant, imbecilic cunt. no need to say any more, I think everyone can clearly see what an obnoxious ignorant fool you are.

while i might not share his opinions or conclusions, he hasn't really seemed obnoxious or imbecelic, unless you find the arguments he makes as opposed to the way he expresses them obnoxious; but certainly i don't think it's a good way of winning folk round to whatever point of view, to debate points back and forth, and then without them being overly rude or anything, to instead resort to insulting them, calling them obnoxious and a cunt, and saying folk will clearly see this.

 

[Bonfirelight]

What you're doing is twisting the numbers to make your case. Yes, 38% of the cases that went to court resulted in a conviction. But there is a 5% conviction rate overall. Which is the lowest it's been for years. Presumably because utter cunts like you sit on juries.

i've never sat on jury.

yes there is a 5% conviction rate from all reported cases.
this of course includes everything from the perpetrator never being caught, to victims withdrawing allegations, to what is probably the main aspect of only 13% of these reports going to court, being there is no evidence to convict (the main reason the CPS will not pursue a case). in these instances going to court will be pointless.

If you adhere to innocent until proven guilty then you need to prove beyond reasonable doubt. You cant do this with just one persons word against another, and largely this is a good thing.
The very nature of rape however means often there won't be a lot of evidence.
Victims just have to report it as soon as they can and then stay with the case because i think the law doesn't do a bad job on this one.

tbh this thread has got a little personal for some people and im not in the mood for it on a friday afternoon, so i'll just agree to disagree with you and leave it at that.