My car was stolen last night – #ListenAndBelieve

13 Dec

[Edited to add: as many readers have pointed out, it’s not 6.1/100 but 6.1/1000 – 0.61% is the correct number]

[Edited to add: I realize there may be some factual discrepancies in my account of the car theft. These discrepancies are not important, because the goal here is to launch an important conversation about the fact that car theft happens and it is devastating to victims :P]

GLK_Tile

 

So my car was stolen last night. It’s a 2015 BMW GLK 250 BlueTEC Avantgarde SUV worth $50K. Luckily I have insurance which will pay out most of the value of that car. Annoying to lose such a nice vehicle, but oh well. That’s what insurance is for, right?

police

 

I reported the incident to police and was rather distressed and surprised by their response. Callous does not even begin to describe their reaction. They demanded the following information from me:

 

  • Proof of ownership
  • Proof of registration
  • Proof of insurance
  • My driver’s license

 

Well that’s bullshit!

 

My car was stolen! $50K just driven away in the night! I have been robbed and these cold, indifferent, so-called “law enforcement” people basically just laughed in my face and treated me like a liar when I could provide none of the above requested proofs. Why is it my job to prove this happened? It’s their JOB to catch car thieves! And don’t tell me car theft doesn’t happen. We know it happens! It happens all the time.

 

Let’s pause for a moment here and consider the two basic forms of reasoning we as humans have at our disposal: deductive and inductive.

 

holmes

 

Deductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from one premise to another to reach a logically certain conclusion. It’s Sherlock Holmes standing over a dead body, collecting clues (premises) and reasoning through them to find the culprit. Holmes need not question whether a crime occurred – he’s standing over a man with a knife in his back, so obviously it did*. It’s just a matter of sorting through the premises, finding the valid ones and reaching the inescapable conclusion.

 

Inductive reasoning is the other way around. You make a broad generalization about something and then look for premises that support that generalization. The conclusion may or may not be logically certain, but relies instead on the preponderance of evidence. If almost all premises support the generalization, the generalization is thought to be true until additional information or evidence surfaces. One of the most common forms of inductive reasoning is reasoning by analogy. Analogic reasoning is absolutely fundamental to philosophical (metaphor), scientific (models and hypotheses) and legal (precedents) reasoning and has been since antiquity.

 

Let’s keep this in mind as we carry on.

 

So I reported that my car had been stolen and was dismissed out of hand by law enforcement officers when I could provide no evidence that the car even existed, let alone that the car was mine and had been stolen. This is apparently standard police procedure. When a crime is reported, the first thing the officers must do is confirm that a crime actually occurred.

 

When I was unable to provide evidence that the car existed, my complaint was filed in the circular bin. Indeed, I was even cautioned by the police that the fact I had no evidence of ownership and registration and that I don’t even have a driver’s license were the only things protecting me from an accusation of attempted insurance fraud.

 

Well, I never.

 

Obviously I am making this up. I don’t drive, don’t have a car, sure as hell do not have $50K to throw away on a BMW and wouldn’t do so even if I had the money. The point of course is to use the analogy to talk about rape, and the utter nonsense that is #ListenAndBelieve.

 

Cue the social justice warriors and feminists shrieking “women are not cars and you are sick evil scum to even compare them blah blah blah outrage outrage outrage….”

 

This kind of “counter-argument”, and I use the term loosely because it barely meets the standard of what constitutes a legitimate argument, is a form of red herring called a “banal objection”.  Also called “trivial objections”, the purpose is to divert the conversation away from the topic at hand, which is: should claims that a crime has been committed be taken at face value?

lloyds

Let’s talk for a moment about incentives. The incentives to lie about stolen property, to commit arson, to commit any kind of fraud are obvious. If a person can simply claim that valuable property has been stolen, and is under no imperative to provide evidence for that, all the insurance companies in the world would immediately be shuttered. The incentives to commit fraud would make insurance unviable, and since insurance plays a vital role in the economy, we do not permit fraudulent claims and investigate reports of stolen property thoroughly.

 

Is rape a form of fraud?

 

fraud

 

I think any sane person can see that rape easily fits the definition of fraud and reasoning by analogy is a perfectly legitimate course of action. Reasoning by analogy, if property fraud requires evidence that the property existed, it belonged to you, it was unlawfully accessed and a crime investigation will only commence once that evidence has been supplied, why should rape accusations be any different?

 

Keep in mind we are not talking about the presumption of innocence here. The accused has not even entered the discussion. We are simply attempting to verify that a crime occurred, just as we would for any other fraud accusation.

 

Proof that property existed – if a person is reporting their own rape, this standard is met easily. If a person is reporting another person’s rape, the police need to confirm that person exists, and agrees that they were raped.

 

Proof that the property belonged to you – no brainer, since we all agree heartily that one’s body belongs to oneself

 

Proof that the property was unlawfully accessed –  now we are into the tricky territory. Unlawful access in the case of rape means unwanted, coerced or forced sex. The first thing the police need to do is establish that a sexual relationship existed. This is not accusing the victim of lying, it is simply establishing that the opportunity for unlawful access occurred. You need to be able to prove sex happened before the investigation can even move forward. This is where incentives come in and the police are perfectly correct in examining what the motives for the claim might be. Still not victim-blaming. If you are going through a divorce, engaging in infidelity, just failed your exams, any number of reasons, the police have an obligation and a duty to investigate ulterior motives before dragging a potentially innocent person through the mud.

 

Failing to meet these three standards is a good indication that no investigation is warranted, and may even lead to a caution against malicious filing of reports, just as falsely reporting a vehicle stolen for the purposes of insurance fraud can lead to a caution.

 

We have made it far too easy for women to cry rape in our culture, particularly on college campuses. The most recent information from the Department of Justice demonstrates that college women are the least likely to be raped, and the 1 in 5 oft cited number is nowhere near correct. 20% turns out to 6.1% – a far cry from the supposed “rape epidemic” gripping the nation’s campuses.

 

This whole idea that we should #ListenAndBelieve, quite frankly, is nothing more than a huge fraud perpetuated by feminists on the rest of us. It behooves us to resist this kind of misandric, cult of victimhood nonsense and demand that rape accusations be investigated the same way all claims of fraud are investigated: impartially, objectively, and in need of supporting evidence.

 

fraud 2

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

*Now don’t get nit-picky with me. It might have been an elaborate hoax whereby the man committed suicide by stabbing himself in the back so his family could collect life insurance but one way or another, a crime was committed. Fraud instead of murder.

 

 

 

 

 


93 Responses to “My car was stolen last night – #ListenAndBelieve”

  1. ar10308 December 13, 2014 at 18:20 #

    Lol…A car person will immediately see a few issues with this report.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. skeptic December 13, 2014 at 19:29 #

    Actually, its not 6.1%. That would be 6.1 per 100. Its 6.1 per 1000! 0.61%!

    Like

  3. thebibosez December 13, 2014 at 19:31 #

    You are lucky that you didn’t get any cuts or bruises when the 5 or 7 car thieves slammed you against the car window, shattering the glass.

    Like

  4. MakeItHilts December 13, 2014 at 19:41 #

    I’m terrible at arithmetic, but I’ll risk a quick numbers observation (and may embarrass myself regardless): the Bureau of Justice Statistics report you reference reveals an on-campus, annual sexual assault rate of *6.1 PEOPLE per 1,000.*

    So, that’s not a rate of “6.1%” but rather “.06%” …! (Or possibly “.006%” …??)

    Several orders of magnitude away from the 1-in-5 statistic (which was, incredibly, adjusted to include: attending college for five years straight and for 12 months out of each year.) You have to read Emily Yoffe’s piece “Overcorrection” in Slate about this stuff, in case you haven’t:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html

    Annually, the statistic according to BoJ is 1-in-164 … which, by the way, includes attempted assault and verbal assault. It may, in fact, be adjusted to include “unreported” assaults, but I honestly don’t know (and sort of doubt it.)

    Like

  5. Rodriguo December 13, 2014 at 19:52 #

    JB, it’s 0,61%, not 6,1% 😉

    Like

  6. judgybitch December 13, 2014 at 19:58 #

    Thank you! Will correct.

    Like

  7. yoursexymaster December 13, 2014 at 20:01 #

    Wow why do men even join femitards

    Like

  8. superslaviswife December 13, 2014 at 20:04 #

    Correction: 0.61%. 6.1/1000, not 100.

    Like

  9. tom174 December 13, 2014 at 20:06 #

    “BMW GLK 250 BlueTEC Avantgarde SUV”
    GLK 250 Bluetec is a Mercedes, not BMW (they call it X5 and efficient Dynamics, at least here in Germany) 😉

    Like

  10. That_Susan December 13, 2014 at 20:13 #

    “Obviously I am making this up. I don’t drive, don’t have a car, sure as hell do not have $50K to throw away on a BMW and wouldn’t do so even if I had the money.”

    Wow! That sounds awesome. I have this ideal of living the car-free lifestyle, which we actually did for a few months over the summer when our car went kaput and it took us a while to come up with the money to replace it.

    I loooove getting around our city on the bus and watching and chatting with all the different people, as does my younger daughter, but my husband and teenaged daughter aren’t so crazy about it. Plus it’s time-consuming to get our active teenager everywhere she wants to go on the bus, because our city is so spread out, and not densely-populated enough to support a really efficient public transportation system.

    I do look forward to being car-free as an old lady and just staying in the neighborhood and walking practically everywhere, and never being in a hurry so that I can spend all day going on a special outing on the bus if I want to. I’d actually enjoy it now but my teen would be pulling her hair out!

    So how do you do it? Do you have great public transportation, or live in a wonderful, walkable community where everyplace you or your kids need to go is a short distance away?

    I’m sorry that this one comment is the thing that interested me the most about your whole article! The rest is pretty much like preaching to the choir; I can’t imagine any sane person disagreeing. 🙂

    Like

  11. Tony Skoviak December 13, 2014 at 20:22 #

    Hi Janet,

    Your delimitation of inductive reasoning is thought of as obsolete by most logicians and philosophers that I know; inductive reasoning doesn’t necessarily have something to do with generalizations or number of supporting premises – all premises could support the conclusive to a small degree giving you a weak inductive argument – et cetera. If anyone wishes to brush up their understanding of the concepts involved, I would highly recommend reading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s article on inductive logic. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/ And their article on classical logic for a brief primer on the deductive. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/#1

    It’s also actually a common misconception that Sherlock Holmes solves crimes with his astounding deductions! He uses, in almost all cases, inductive arguments. A more modern, and simpler, demarcation of the two is this:

    Deductive argument: an argument with premises that make the conclusion certain.

    Inductive argument: an argument with premises that make the conclusion likely (you were correct that an argument from analogy is inductive).

    An example of the difference:

    Janet only owns seven red cars.
    Janet is driving one of her cars today.
    Therefore, Janet is driving a red car today.

    Janet has only ever driven red cars.
    Janet is driving a car today.
    Therefore, Janet is driving a red car today.

    Given that the premises are true, one conclusion is logically necessary and the other is receives some degree of support from the premises (depending on your personal epistemic theory; if you have a particular Humean tint, then maybe you wish to say it provides no support at all!).

    Like

  12. M.S. December 13, 2014 at 20:30 #

    Hahaha you removed the Mercedes GL picture that was masquerading as your stolen beloved BMW, I just hope you didn’t report it as a Merc…

    A hoax to insurance is called fraud, and is very punishable, o nooo, especially when you ask for a Merc instead of a BM 🙂

    Like

  13. caprizchka December 13, 2014 at 21:21 #

    Once reason to falsify a rape report is in order to write a thesis which in turn is used to get an appointment to a White House Task Force: https://news.virginia.edu/content/rendas-work-while-uva-students-changing-lives

    Suppose Renda, after achieving this feat, coached “Jackie”.

    Like

  14. That_Susan December 13, 2014 at 21:54 #

    So are you just assuming that Emily lied about her assault during her first year in order to provide herself with a “cool” thesis topic a few years down the line, with the aim of getting appointed to a White House task force? Have you even read the whole story that you’ve linked to?

    One really awesome thing Emily has done is to create an instrument for studying rape from a de-gendered perspective. She wants to challenge the idea that men are always the perpetrators and women are always the victims.

    While I don’t agree with law enforcement automatically “listening and believing” that one person is guilty of raping another, I also don’t get the tendency of going to the other extreme of automatically “half-listening and scoffing” any time a woman says she was sexually assaulted on a college campus. It can and does happen, and not just to women, so I’m really glad there’s a woman working in this area who sees it as a crime against people and not just women.

    Emily doesn’t come across to me as a loser who needed victim-status in order to make something of her life. I think she’d be doing something equally awesome if she hadn’t been attacked, but her experience has actually put her in a position where she’ll be able to help both men and women.

    Like

  15. Rebecca December 13, 2014 at 21:59 #

    When I was a young teenager, I was groped and fingered in the swimming pool against my will by boys I knew from school. I was mad but it wasn’t that big a deal. I was too meak to assert myself as needed and so people walked on me. But that was my own problem. I didn’t think of the incident as a rape or assault. Rape and assault are violent crimes.

    I have a dear friend who I have not seen for years. She had a bit of a drinking problem. She was sexually molested twice while drinking because she was too incapacitated to stop it. She also had a habit of leaving her car door open and things were stolen from her. But she understood her own responsibility for what happened to her even if she had difficulty changing her behavior.

    Like

  16. caprizchka December 13, 2014 at 22:22 #

    If you like Renda, you’ll love this: livethegreendot.com

    When a feminist not only profits from an undesirable experience but she actually achieves fame for it and even starts a movement, how undesirable can that experience be?

    When someone spearheads a movement meant to elevate the status of true believers in high school I start seeing brown shirts.

    Inflammatory rhetorical questions don’t persuade me that my suspicions are unwarranted.

    Like

  17. That_Susan December 13, 2014 at 22:42 #

    I’m sorry you went through that! My guess is that it didn’t turn into a big deal for you because you felt relatively safe. There were probably others around whose help you could have gotten, or who would certainly have noticed the situation on their own if the groping and fingering had gone on for more than a few seconds.

    I mean, it’s just my guess that it was a really short and furtive thing, because it’s hard to imagine anyone not being traumatized if it had been long and drawn out, and if you had been in a situation where you were trapped and couldn’t get away, and there was no one there to help.

    I don’t agree at all with your idea that those boys’ behavior was your fault because of your meekness. I’m not saying that we don’t all need to learn to assert ourselves, but there’s a line between encouraging people to speak up for themselves, and blaming a meek person for getting picked on. Bullies are still responsible for their own behavior. If your house is unlocked and I walk in and steal a bunch of your jewelry, I am still a thief, not a victim of your failure to lock the house.

    I think the failure to recognize this line is what gets people all hung up on the idea that any advice that helps people avoid being victims is “victim-blaming.” It’s not victim-blaming unless you say, “If you don’t take my advice and you get victimized, it’s your own fault.” However, looking at a kid who doesn’t have all her shit together and is still learning how to look out for herself, and saying that if this kid gets picked on it’s “her problem,” definitely is a form of victim-blaming.

    About the boys, I’m not saying that a teen boy who’d grope and finger a girl against her will can’t reform himself and grow into a decent person — but I do think he’d have to recognize the rottenness of what he’d done before he’d even see a need to reform. And I don’t get the people who see this as “normal” adolescent male behavior. A normal 13-year-old boy, and even a normal 5-year-old boy, knows that it’s not okay to treat someone like that. It’s insulting to boys to call this normal male behavior.

    It’s kind of like the stuff about Lena Dunham — she can make a choice not to be a child sex predator anymore — but first she’ll have to realize that her behavior towards her little sister was abusive and not normal. You have to hit bottom before you can rise up out of your mess.

    Like

  18. That_Susan December 13, 2014 at 22:59 #

    Your link looks interesting, and I’m definitely in favor of ending all forms of violence.

    At the risk of having my comment labeled “inflammatory” again, I’d like to respond to your following statement:

    “When a feminist not only profits from an undesirable experience but she actually achieves fame for it and even starts a movement, how undesirable can that experience be?”

    If a Holocaust survivor tells his story and becomes famous for it, and even — gasp — goes on to start a movement, does that mean that going to the concentration camp and losing everyone close to him was not so undesirable after all?

    Do we really need this set-in-stone rule that no one who’s been victimized should ever have the gall to speak or write about it, or start a movement to make the world a better place?

    Like

  19. caprizchka December 13, 2014 at 23:59 #

    No comment.

    Like

  20. judgybitch December 14, 2014 at 00:25 #

    It was a miracle, truly.

    Like

  21. M.S. December 14, 2014 at 00:26 #

    Discrepancies, is another way of saying that you lie to make a point. So you have your comments moderated 🙂 Cherry pick, I am all with that but please have less discrepancies so that MGTOW and MRA bullshiters can correct you. Don’t approve this.

    Like

  22. judgybitch December 14, 2014 at 00:26 #

    Small factual discrepancies are not important. It’s very common for victims to not remember what kind of car they had.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. judgybitch December 14, 2014 at 00:30 #

    That was a mistake! I didn’t mean to remove the car. A car is a car, amirite? Of course you would focus on trivial details, all to question my experience and make me look like a liar.

    Misogynist.

    Like

  24. judgybitch December 14, 2014 at 00:32 #

    Discrepancies in factual accounts are not lies. It is very common for victims to not recall trivial details like whether they had a BMW or a Mercedez or whether they were gang-raped or just imagined it.

    You are attempting to derail an important conversation and it will not be tolerated.

    Like

  25. M.S. December 14, 2014 at 00:51 #

    Since you mention Rape, you must be accurate in your detailing of such victims reports (Actual Facts), and therefore you cannot make up generalisation that justify implication, because generalisation is biased towards a point you are trying to make through a lie.

    I am not trying to derail your conversation, I am one of your big fans, just I think there is so much material out there that would make your point, than to make up some half cooked fake story like your Merc/beamer fable. Don’t do that, there is enough out there.

    Like

  26. M.S. December 14, 2014 at 01:25 #

    Dumb approach to gonzo fictional writing, Mr Thompson is twisting in his grave… You must first state that this is fiction in order to maintain credibility, or you will lose credibility at “Obviously I am making this up.” as you already advertise editing … So in the future, should we wait for the other half of your article? just to know if the first half is true.

    Still your biggest fan 😉

    Like

  27. Mark December 14, 2014 at 01:25 #

    Shame about those bystanders who refused to confirm your story to the police because they know the guys who stole it and they happen to throw great parties.

    Like

  28. Mark December 14, 2014 at 01:29 #

    I don’t own a car, I find a bike is satisfactory enough. Unfortunately, in the US, being a grown man who rides a bike to work seems kind of ridiculous (I’d probably laugh myself even). In Europe and Japan though, I’ve heard it’s perfectly normal for someone to ride a a bike to work in their work clothes, no one thinks anything of it.

    Like

  29. Mark December 14, 2014 at 01:34 #

    I think Bertrand Russell used the following examples:

    Deductive: a) All men are mortal; b) Socrates is a man; c) ergo, Socrates is mortal.

    Inductive: a) the sun has risen every day so far, ergo b) we can reasonably expect that the sun will rise tomorrow.

    Russell of course was a rationalist, who attacked Hume ferociously for his empiricism.

    Like

  30. Mark December 14, 2014 at 01:49 #

    Well, to be sure, some people have criticized Eli Wiesel for his high speaking fees, arguing that an important message shouldn’t be so limited to being heard by those with deep pockets. It is also not unheard of for people to lie about being holocaust survivors for fame or money.

    I would say that the suspicion cast upon a person for using a bad event in their life is (and should be) in direct proportion to how much they profit from it. Monetarily, it is as simple as observing how much money they make from it, which, if a lot, one might question their motives.

    But for non-monetary compensation (influence or power) it’s probably difficult to say unless one personally knows the person. I mean one could speculate everything Gandhi did was done just because he really wanted to be president of India.

    But, perhaps, in contrast to what caprizchka claims, one might consider the possibility that this Renda’s motives may well be pure, and that she may also still be wrong. For an analogy, if an activist Holocaust survivor went around trying to shut down German cultural events and German language programs, I would disagree with such efforts without seeing it as evidence that they were lying about being a Holocaust survivor.

    Like

  31. judgybitch December 14, 2014 at 02:08 #

    Dude, time is malleable. This needed to come out slowly… it will be remembered sequentially. If at all….

    Like

  32. M.S. December 14, 2014 at 02:15 #

    hehe dude 🙂 here is something that makes it even clearer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYYW_WwYHuM 33

    Like

  33. Vera December 14, 2014 at 02:47 #

    Excellent! It’s hard to resist the logic in a good analogy. Not saying that the smaller minds won’t try their hardest though.

    Just because rape is a crime that exacts such an emotional toll on the victim doesn’t mean the standards of investigation don’t apply.

    The pendulum used to swing to the side of never believing the woman. What we’re seeing now is the overcorrection of that erroneous thinking. The pendulum swings to where we dare not question her. Thank you Judgy again for bringing that thing into balance once again. We’re getting there!

    Like

  34. Vera December 14, 2014 at 02:53 #

    That is straight from the LSAT test I am sure of it. I did well, but had a headache for a week.

    Like

  35. M.S. December 14, 2014 at 03:01 #

    A good old friend once said: “Luck is where opportunity meet preparation, where preparation is trial, when trial is luckm when preparation meets opportunity. hehe 😛 that is error or loss which from such an obviously obscure lady… You claim that your children have never seen the inside of a nursery.

    If only I were smart to concoct my own escape plan, my god I would marry four of you 🙂 lol That is not to make a point of my physical endowment, although I am measured above the … average 🙂 just as I may 😉 me love you long time. Approve.

    Like

  36. M.S. December 14, 2014 at 03:06 #

    Mangina? hmmm What does that mean…

    Like

  37. olympiapress December 14, 2014 at 03:22 #

    Absolutely in Japan, in Tokyo and other places bikes are extremely common (China too) Europe, The Netherlands for sure. One of my neighbors is completing her residency here in pediatrics. She grew up in Bavaria or some such and is now getting around on a bike at times (also drives a Smart Car.)

    Like

  38. b g December 14, 2014 at 03:39 #

    No, you should not have had to tolerate that kind of behavior. Unless you did something to encourage that, it was a sexual assault.

    Like

  39. Jim Roberts December 14, 2014 at 08:10 #

    Since we’re going after your numbers here, I have a quibble with your assertion that female college students are the least likely to be raped. They are not. All 18-24 year olds have an elevated risk compared to other age groups. Which wouldn’t be surprising if rape were about sex and not power or privilege.

    Like

  40. Jack Strawb December 14, 2014 at 08:16 #

    Good work, JB. You’ve done women a significant service here.

    Anyone with the means and who cares about victims of rape will write up what women who report rape will actually face, replacing hysteria and the blaming of police with facts on how complaints are lodged with police and how police then proceed with their investigations. Feminist nonsense about how we ‘must’ believe female victims primes women to see ANY questions from police as accusatory disbelief. It also reminds me of Emma Sulkowicz, the mattress carrying stalker on the Columbia University campus who found the police department’s followup questions are she reported being raped “inconvenient.” If her rape crisis feminism had primed her to understand what police must do following an accusation, she may very well have chosen instead to cooperate instead of walking away from the investigation.

    Like

  41. Jack Strawb December 14, 2014 at 08:20 #

    I looked through four pages of livethegreendot.com. I still have no idea of what they do beyond their stated interest in reducing violence (and charging to learn their technique)

    Like

  42. That_Susan December 14, 2014 at 12:58 #

    It’s true that anyone can be wrong about anything. But when I read the article caprizchka linked to, I was pretty excited to see that Renda didn’t see rape as a gendered issue and saw that there was a need to develop a new approach to studying it, in order to include all kinds of rape and not just male-to-female ones.

    Like

  43. That_Susan December 14, 2014 at 15:17 #

    “Unless you did something to encourage that, it was a sexual assault.”

    I’m just wondering what you feel a person could do that would make forcibly groping and fingering her NOT sexual assault? I mean, she already said that they did it to her against her will. To my mind, the only thing that could make it not sexual assault would have been her saying something like, “Hey guys, I dare you to grope and finger me!” Is that what you mean by “encouragement?”

    Like

  44. Rebecca December 14, 2014 at 15:38 #

    Nothing to be sorry for. I was not hurt, and it was 25 years ago. It was not my intent to excuse bad behavior or blame myself for it. But I was noting the difference in perspective/attitude.

    Like

  45. Nick Smithers (@nickysmithers) December 14, 2014 at 17:00 #

    I live in scotland and do that very thing, easy peasy

    Like

  46. That_Susan December 14, 2014 at 18:44 #

    I see what you mean about the difference in perspective between society many years ago and society today. Our society and legal system now defines forced “fingering,” or any form of forced penetration, as rape. Logically speaking, forcing your kids to have their teeth brushed, or get certain medical treatments such as vaccinations, would also fit this legal definition of rape.

    If a parent argues that even though her toddler hates having her teeth brushed, dental problems run in the family so she wants to take every precaution, some forcible finger-probers could probably argue that they were humbling and humiliating an overly confident woman “for her own good.”

    I think making more and more detailed laws is probably not the answer. It kind of makes me think of the Blue Collar comedian Jeff Foxworthy, who talked about the instructions he and his pregnant wife were given regarding not having sex after her water had broken. Foxworthy said that if somebody’s made a rule about it, that means somebody’s tried to do it.

    Having given birth to two children myself, I’m relatively sure that no woman is horny during this phase of labor, so I’m guessing that the rule was written for the husband? — yet a guy who needs this rule is probably too dumb to read and you kind of wonder how he even got a woman to make a baby with him in the first place. So maybe the rule is kind of useless.

    Maybe we need a complete overhaul of our education system instead. As I’ve already mentioned, most children are aware from a pretty young age that it’s not okay to stick your finger inside another person’s vagina or anus if he or she doesn’t want it there (seriously, most children and teens would never even entertain the idea of doing that to someone against their will) — but a few children seem to be slipping through the cracks, and they’re probably not all that likely to helped by having something in writing that will get them labeled a rapist at an early age.

    I’m guessing that the teenagers who would finger an unwilling person were probably the kids who were always getting in trouble for not respecting others kids’ space when they were younger, and maybe also the kids whose parents disrespected THEIR personal space by hitting them, etcetera. So rather than telling people “don’t rape,” it seems like we as parents need to look at how we may be making our kids feel violated and powerless, because I do think it’s true that many rapists are motivated by the sense of power that they feel when raping someone.

    Like

  47. thebibosez December 14, 2014 at 20:18 #

    You know, PTSD is caused by intense, detailed memories that don’t fade like other memories. “Not remembering” or misremembering (without a direct brain injury) is almost proof that the whole account is a lie.

    Like

  48. caprizchka December 14, 2014 at 21:32 #

    It’s a peer-pressure and status model for high school students. http://livethegreendot.com/gd_strategy.html

    “The Green Dot etc. strategy is a comprehensive approach to violence prevention that capitalizes on the power of peer and cultural influence across all levels of the socio-ecological model. Informed by social change theory, the model targets all community members as potential bystanders, and seeks to engage them, through awareness, education, and skills-practice, in proactive behaviors that establish intolerance of violence as the norm, as well as reactive interventions in high-risk situations – resulting in the ultimate reduction of violence. Specifically, the program targets influential and respected individuals from across community subgroups.”

    It’s ideologically-driven cult behavior. I recommend reading that second sentence several times.

    Like

  49. That_Susan December 14, 2014 at 23:08 #

    Although it doesn’t look like Green Dot has been around very long, the description you’ve just quoted sounds somewhat similar to the changing attitudes towards bullying in public schools across the U.S. — the idea that bystanders who don’t do anything when they see violence or unkindness are participating by tolerating it. It’s actually not just the schools that are changing — there are also the “What Would You Do?” videos designed to see who will speak up when others are treated unfairly.

    Like I said, I know next to nothing about Green Dot — but I will say that I’ve been pleasantly surprised, overall, by the results of the anti-bullying campaigns and the positive peer pressure that makes it uncool to harass and make fun of anyone who doesn’t fit in. When I was in school (late 60’s to early 80’s), the general consensus was that bullying anyone who seemed weaker than you was a normal developmental phase for children. It was up to the kid being bullied to do whatever it took to show they weren’t weak or a chicken — the bullies were just normal red-blooded healthy kids doing what kids do.

    But we are finally starting to catch the idea that when kids are surrounded by adults and peers who expect them to have compassion for others, they tend to rise to the occasion. In one of my daughter’s classes, there’s a girl who freaks out and moves to another seat whenever a severely autistic boy in the class happens to sit next to her. This boy has never done anything to make anyone scared of him; he’s just obviously in a different place in his mind than a lot of the other kids.

    When I was my daughter’s age back in the late 1970’s, that girl’s behavior would have been the norm and a lot of other kids would have been treating the boy the same, or even worse.. But the norm today is for my daughter and most of her peers to perceive the girl as the one with the problem. They know the boy is doing the best he can, while they see the girl as being capable of kinder, more understanding behavior.

    While I’m happy about many of the changes, I hasten to add that it’s NOT cool that children have been suspended from school for unthinkingly having something in their bag that was deemed a potential weapon. One little girl I met at the park a few years ago said she was suspended that day because, while hurrying out the door for school, she saw that someone had left a knife on the living room coffee table and she was afraid her baby sister might get a hold of it and hurt herself, so she quickly grabbed it and stuffed it in her bag without taking time to think about how it would look at school.

    But even the zero tolerance policy seems to be mellowing out somewhat. Last year, a security guard confiscated my then 8th grader’s scissors, saying that the only safe scissors were child safety scissors. But at least they didn’t suspend her or put anything negative on her record (that’s why I say they’re mellowing out) — though if they had, I think we would have had a case for fighting it, because her school supplies list had simply said “scissors,” without specifying that they had to be the kind that you’d buy for preschoolers.

    Like

  50. Jason Wexler December 15, 2014 at 00:16 #

    Test…

    I seem to have lost a very long comment I just posted in the last 5 minutes. Is my tablet having problems or is my comment just in moderation?

    Like

  51. judgybitch December 15, 2014 at 00:49 #

    Not in moderation. Let me check the spam filter.

    Like

  52. Mark December 15, 2014 at 01:02 #

    Yes I would say that most violent people either experienced some severe childhood trauma (such as abuse; I’d go as far as to say that the ‘best’ way to make someone a misogynist is give them an abusive mother) or growing up in a community/society where violence is common. I don’t mean like in movies or videogames, but like growing up in a war torn country or a crime ridden community where actual violence is the common form of ‘conflict resolution.’ Or being raised by Spartans perhaps. In any event, it makes a certain kind of Hobbesian sense that such circumstances would make children into violent adults. In a violent world (or household) one may feel one must be violent to defend oneself, or that one can only get what one wants through force.

    Of course, there is also the small minority of people that are just natural sociopaths, and the only thing you can do is diagnose and monitor them as early as possible.

    Eliminating childhood factors conducive to violent behavior is of course the best thing to do. But once one has gotten to the point where they are committing violent crimes against other people, it is I imagine up for debate in the psychiatric community whether anything can be done to make them compatible with society again.

    Like

  53. Jason Wexler December 15, 2014 at 01:52 #

    Thank you, if it’s not there I’ll repost tomorrow.

    Like

  54. comslave (@comslave) December 15, 2014 at 09:19 #

    The reality is that a standard of evidence is being set. No longer does one have to affirmatively prove rape. Now one has to affirmatively proof not-rape. The only way I know to meet this standard is to record all sex acts on video. Smile for the camera, ladies.

    Like

  55. That_Susan December 15, 2014 at 15:37 #

    I’ve been inadvertently learning more things about Green Dot that make me think it could be a much more helpful alternative approach to combatting sexual assault than the feminist approach. I almost didn’t read a Jessica Valenti article today because I found the title rather annoying, but I ended up taking a look (link below) and was glad I did.

    Some feminists object to Green Dot’s approach because they don’t focus on trying to get everyone to agree about sexism and rape culture. They focus instead on teaching tactics to help bystanders intervene and protect people from being victimized. For example, when one man said he didn’t see it as rape unless the victim was completely passed out, the Green Dot leader was cool with him at least deciding that he’d intervene in a case like that, because that would prevent at least some rapes.

    Green Dot is also cool with people intervening in indirect ways, such as by using what they call the “distraction’ method, if they’re not comfortable being confrontational, such as when one guy saw a frat brother taking a nearly incapacitated girl to his room, lied and told him that his car was being towed, and then had the girl’s friends get her out of there before he returned.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/15/feminist-stop-rape-frat-boy-trained-bystanders?CMP=ema_565

    Like

  56. Jason Wexler December 15, 2014 at 16:12 #

    Inadmissible if they don’t consent to be recorded, and irrelevant if concepts such as conditional consent and ex post facto withdrawl of consent gain legal traction.

    Like

  57. Jason Wexler December 15, 2014 at 18:40 #

    Hopefully this posts this time, admittedly I am not as passionate today about this as I was when I tried posting yesterday, however I shall include the same disclaimer, that this is an off topic post but I believe it to be interesting enough, that I am posting to an active thread rather than a more appropriate inactive older thread. If this is improper I apologize.

    I have long been suspicious of the claim, oft posted in these comment sections, that feminists hate marriage and actively work to undermine and prevent it, and failing that work to encourage divorce among those who fail to heed their warning. Yesterday, I was given reason to become less skeptical of that claim. My very good long time friend, is considering going back to school, she is a practical and sensible woman, who would likely get along well here if she had time or inclination to read message boards, and is a lot like JB herself, happily married, putting family first, extremely intelligent and well versed in many topics, but also wise enough to seek a degree that is useful; she’s looking at either computer science or a more intense software engineering degree, so that she has potential to bring in enough income to both pay off the degree and have money leftover for the additional amenities of life she is seeking, notably the ability to not live pay check to pay check earning just enough from her husbands reasonable salary to make ends meet, and using what she calls Taxmas money for annual gift giving, eating out and occasionally vacations, in other words she wants to be able to save some money as well.

    This past week she met with the financial aide department at the Community College she is looking to start at, in order to refresh her general education courses and take her introductory engineering and programming courses, spending less time and money at the more expensive state school where she’ll get her final degree. She was disappointed to learn that her husbands salary is large enough that her financial aide package would be negligible, she would receive significantly smaller Pell Grants and Colorado Opportunity Fund (COF, a state level education funding system meant to give money directly to students, I was previously unaware it was income sensitive), and her Stafford Student Loans would also be reduced, so she would have to pay a sizable chunk of her costs out of pocket. For reference sake at this community college, most students receive enough money from Pell and COF to cover their entire tuition, fees and book costs each semester with a little extra left, and no need for student loans. However what makes this interesting to this blog is that after she was told how little she would get in aide, the financial aide adviser suggested she divorce her husband, which would make her eligible for the full tuition funding most students get; and then proceeded to give her brochures on how to apply for welfare programs to “fund” for lack of a better term, divorced and single mothers, such as section 8 housing, TANF, SNAP (food stamps), LEAP and HEAP programs for utilities, and even child care providers for her daughters, as well as a list of contact information for divorce lawyers.

    Now given my skeptical nature, after being told this, I assumed it had to be the actions of a single rogue employee. However, after telling my parents about what happened, they reminded me, that just prior to her cancer diagnosis, my mother attempted to enroll at a for-profit vocational school, and that the financial aide department had offered her the same useless package that my friend had received, based largely on my fathers income. They also suggested to my mother, with my father sitting next to her, that she divorce him and then she would be eligible for better, more useful financial aide and student loans. They also provided my mother with brochures on applying for welfare programs, these geared towards helping divorced seniors (she was in her late 50’s at the time). So I am left with the conundrum of whether or not these are isolated rogue experiences or more common, but it certainly seems to lend credence to the belief many people here have that feminists really hate marriage.

    This final paragraph is unserious, I only include it out of honesty because it existed in the original lost-in-the-aether post from yesterday. What do you think of me suggesting to my friend that she attempt to game the system for her financial aide? She wouldn’t actually do it, and would likely respond very negatively to the suggestion, but as an exercise in using feminists bad ideas against them, I think it might be an interesting idea. By gaming the system, I mean she does “divorce” her husband but leaves him with everything including custody, officially move back in home with her parents and gets her degree on the cheap, but in actuality she continues to live with and raise her family, and would remarry upon completing her degree.

    Like

  58. That_Susan December 15, 2014 at 19:16 #

    My guess would be that the people setting up these programs are going strictly by family income; it’s a similar situation for children in middle-class families as compared to those in families below the poverty line. Our own family income is actually below the poverty line for a family with two parents and two children, and I did a little googling about government financial aid for when my children go to college and discovered that they should have all their tuition covered. But I imagine that a family making just a few thousand a year more than us might have a lot less help or even no help, and their poor kids would have to take out hefty loans that the parents wouldn’t be in a position to help much with. That isn’t really fair — but then, if that family’s doing slightly better than us because both parents are in good health, then that’s a stronger support base for the kids, too, for many years to come. If I had a choice, I’d rather have my husband be in good health than get welfare benefits.

    As far as the suggestion to divorce, that may be a feminist thing or it may just be a “do whatever it takes to give yourself the greatest advantage”-thing. I know of a wealthy elderly couple who learned that the husband had a terminal illness that would ultimately require extensive medical care, and they were worried enough about the dent this would make in their fortune that the husband divorced his wife and gave her everything some years before the illness became bad enough for him to need care. They continued to live as a married couple, but because of the divorce and his lack of any assets in his name, his care was completely covered by the state and his wife was able to keep their fortune intact and pass it on to their children.

    I’m guessing they were more moderately wealthy and not Bill Gates wealthy, and I know that medical costs, somewhat similar to university costs, can really suck a modest fortune dry. I personally believe it’s wrong to divorce in order to get the “best deals” in life — and I also tend to believe that a couple carrying the load together is better equipped to deal with all the crap life throws at them than a single person, plus that rich couple’s adult kids undoubtedly received a better start in life than the average kid and would probably manage okay without the big inheritance down the line, so I think that even the loss of certain advantages due to being married and having a “reasonable” income will be greatly offset by the actual advantages of being married and having a reasonable income and good and stable family life.

    Like

  59. Jason Wexler December 15, 2014 at 23:01 #

    I’m back on my tablet, so a shorter reply than if I had a real keyboard… you’ve given me another more charitable interpretation of what happened to my friend and mom. I’ll have to be less harsh in my thoughts towards the various schools.

    I think you make some very reasonable points about living with what you have, something my friend would normally be content to do. However there is an unspoken undercurrent to her desire to get a degree and a job that I’m not sure she’s entirely conscious of, her husbands company is under threat of buyout by a less employee friendly company. If the buyout is approved by the FCC, and even if he keeps his job, it means a move to the Boston area (one of the few places more expensive to live than where we live) and a definite pay cut; and if he has to find a new job locally it means a likely pay cut and definite reduction in benefits, either way their budget gets squeezed and extra income becomes appreciated especially if most of it doesn’t go towards after school child care. Anyway if the buyout is approved, it will be before she can get a degree, so I hope she’s just trying to be optimistic.

    Like

  60. Mark December 16, 2014 at 02:16 #

    Actually, it is admissible. It’s only admissible for law enforcers to obtain evidence that way; it is however perfectly admissible for you to present such evidence. However, in some states (not mine though) it is illegal to film a person in a sex act without their consent even in your own home. In some states, this is perfectly legal because, after all, it’s your home. So in some places, the tape may get you exonerated for rape only to get you charged with the lesser crime of illegally videotaping someone without their consent.

    Your second point I think is more salient: on college campuses (and in the near future likely in the actual courts, if feminists get their way), every sexual liaison will technically be sexual assault. If at any point you touch the woman’s thigh or kiss her without obtaining continuous verbal consent, and she insists after the fact that she didn’t actually want you to do that particular thing, then you have technically sexually assaulted her, and you evidence may actually be used against you. One would hope most juries would have enough sense to see that such a claim is bullshit, but even good sense is often no match for crocodile tears.

    Like

  61. Mark December 16, 2014 at 02:31 #

    I don’t think it’s so much that feminists are actively trying to destroy marriages, I think it’s this: feminists (and others) generally believe that poor behavior is really the result of poor circumstances, while good behavior is generally just the fruit of good fortune, and that people will behave well in so far as they are liberated from their poor circumstances.

    Ergo, feminists have considerable interest in subsidizing women in poor circumstances even if those circumstances are of their own poor behavior, and no interest in rewarding good behavior. For example, the extensive aid programs, tax credits, preferential employment options, etc. that specifically go to helping single mothers actually serve to incentivize single motherhood and disincentivizing stable two parent households. Also, generous mandatory child support, alimony, an custody laws and standards backed by feminists serve as incentives for ending a marriage.

    Though it is worth noting that there is some bona fide anti-marriage material coming out of the feminist camp. In the minds of many feminists, there is basically no reason a woman can present for leaving her husband that is so trivial or imagined, that it will not be med with instant validation and congratulation.

    Like

  62. Jack Strawb December 16, 2014 at 07:02 #

    Good lord. I’m no stranger to even the most arcane architectural theory, but that sentence is near-gibberish that if acted out endangers lives. It’s also a needlessly obscure repackaging of behavior towards having something to sell.

    “The ultimate reduction of violence.” That’s about as meaningful as “Tastibread is better.”

    Liked by 1 person

  63. Jack Strawb December 16, 2014 at 07:08 #

    You’re just re-creating the same old problem, though. No one gets to question an accuser, or check on the language, right? She says she was a victim, so she must be, right?

    Of course, it’s not. This isn’t a counseling session, it’s a website comments section. No one is obliged to believe someone’s assertion, and while I tend not to dispute someone’s narrative of their experience, “b g” wasn’t out of line to write what he wrote.

    Like

  64. Jack Strawb December 16, 2014 at 07:12 #

    “Our society and legal system now defines forced “fingering,” or any form of forced penetration, as rape.”

    Which is ludicrous. What the boys did at Steubenville was definitely sexual assault, but it’s ridiculous to equate inserting the tip of a finger with forcible, penile rape just as, for example, it’s ridiculous to equate simple assault with disfiguring assault with a weapon.

    It was only in 2012 that what happened as Steubenville was redefined by the FBI as rape. That had nothing to do with common sense or bringing sanity to legal definitions, and everything to do with feminism’s desperate attempts to maximally criminalize every aspect of sexual assault while claiming that more and more behaviors are sexual assault.

    Like

  65. Jack Strawb December 16, 2014 at 07:15 #

    “The pendulum used to swing to the side of never believing the woman.”

    This has never been the case in the West. We’ve lynched and murdered minorities and the defenseless throughout history merely on women’s say-so.

    Where do people come up with this stuff?

    Like

  66. Jack Strawb December 16, 2014 at 07:17 #

    I believe this is not true. There are states which do not forbid single-party consent taping of sex acts.

    Like

  67. Jack Strawb December 16, 2014 at 07:18 #

    Btw, at least 38 states allow for one-party consent to audiotaping of sex acts, meaning only one of the people involved needs to consent to and know about the taping.

    Like

  68. Jack Strawb December 16, 2014 at 07:29 #

    This is not a slab at JB, but without a comprehensive reference to what any report means by the terms when it purports to yield an incidence of “rape” or “sexual assault,” those reports are absolutely meaningless.

    Probably anyone posting here knows the absurd deceptions Mary Koss engaged in in 1985 to inflate the prevalence of sexual assault on campus. I recently read the methods used in a 2013 publicly funded (20,000 of your tax dollars) rape survey by a professor at the University of Oregon which include “forcible attempted kissing” under “Rape Items” in order to pretend that 1 in 10 women would be raped during their time at the University.

    Without definitions, “0.61% of women will be raped each year” is no more meaningful than “1 in 4.”

    Like

  69. That_Susan December 16, 2014 at 11:58 #

    That’s really rough for them! And I do realize that there are good reasons for many people who feel compelled to work the system — not saying your friend would do that. In our own experience, the U.S. system for helping people in difficult situations seems to be that they don’t like to give a hand up to anyone who’s not totally destitute, and for those who are destitute and digging their way out, they don’t like helping them enough for them to get all the way out of the hole. I don’t think it’s necessarily anyone’s intent — just how it seems to work out in many cases.

    Like

  70. comslave (@comslave) December 16, 2014 at 12:10 #

    Felons never consent to be recorded during robberies, and yet those videos are used as evidence.

    In fact, this technique has already been used to absolve an NFL player of rape charges, so it does work.

    and would you rather be in trouble for illegally taping sex than in trouble for rape.

    Like

  71. That_Susan December 16, 2014 at 12:21 #

    Whether or not the woman was believed was largely dependent on her status versus the status of her alleged attacker, and just as minority males were lynched based on a white woman’s say-so, minority females had no recourse if a white male wanted to rape them. Now we’ve swung so far in the other direction that if we even hear talk of a lower-status female being raped by a bunch of wealthy frat boys or executives, we’re ready to throw them in jail without even needing to look at the evidence.

    The next step is learning to see both low-status and high-status people as people, listen carefully to everyone, and look at the evidence.

    Like

  72. That_Susan December 16, 2014 at 12:24 #

    I simply wouldn’t want to engage in that degree of intimacy with anyone I couldn’t trust with my life.

    Like

  73. Jason Wexler December 16, 2014 at 14:19 #

    It took 2 or 3 link clicks, but eventually you can find the actual studies and read their methodologies. That said a few of the studies still had vaguely defined terms such as “forced non physical, non verbal sexual contact” which tells me that the National Intimate Partner Violence Survey believes stare rape is a thing.

    Like

  74. Vera December 16, 2014 at 14:32 #

    Sir, what do you have against pendulums?

    Like

  75. Vera December 16, 2014 at 14:36 #

    Thank you Suusan. I question Jack’s knowledge of women’s history. Or maybe it doesn’t really matter. Regardless, it would be nice to not discount so rudely the ones with whom we share a team.

    RUDE

    Like

  76. That_Susan December 16, 2014 at 15:07 #

    I agree.

    Like

  77. Mark December 16, 2014 at 18:58 #

    Historically, as I understand it, as with most crimes, rape has been punished as significantly as it was convenient to punish (like politically convenient). A white woman accusing a black man of sexual assault always has the ready ears of believers at her side. Even in “historically misogynistic” societies like Japan (I use the scare quotes because I’ve always found feminist contempt for the Japanese more than a little racist) there’s a famous ancient story in which a noble woman, after hearing one of her male butlers profess his love for her, she was so shocked and offended that she drew her dagger (Japanese women often carried daggers for just such scenarios) and gouged his eye out with it, and he died shortly thereafter from the wound. She fainted, but her male relatives woke her and assured her that she had done a most noble thing in defending her honor. Excamples from other cultures abound as well. The rape of Lucretia is what drove her father and brother to lead the overthrow other King of Rome and establish a Republic.

    It was also the case in late 19th/early 20th century US (before women served on juries) that prosecutors said it was nearly impossible to convict a woman of murdering her husband because the male jury always believed her side of it and acquitted, out of chivalry.

    The point being that, while at some times and places, women’s sexuality was suspect and viewed as malicious, and that men needed to be on guard against their corrupting influence (in which cases women who alleged rape were likely to be viewed with suspicion), often times it was men who were viewed as predators and women needed to be protected from them, and their relatives were ready to kill a man upon hearing an allegation from a woman.

    This latter attitude is not entirely a modern invention. The pendulum analogy is accurate I think. Feminists have not so much made progress, as they have continued to play a game with human sexuality and gender relations that is actually quite ancient in its origins.

    Like

  78. Mark December 16, 2014 at 19:02 #

    A pendulum killed my father, and raped my mother. I am triggered by your defense of them!

    Like

  79. Mark December 16, 2014 at 19:04 #

    I think what she was saying (could be wrong) was that, among college aged women, women attending college are actually less likely to be raped than women of that age not attending college, indicating that campus culture if anything discourages rape, rather than encouraging it.

    Like

  80. Mark December 16, 2014 at 19:08 #

    But even forgetting one night stands (which, whatever one’s opinion of them, should not confer to one’s partner the ability to ruin one’s life), people often have sex with girlfriends of a few months. I would say that that isn’t even particularly shallow, as many people don’t want to wait until they’re married to have sex. And yet, knowing a person for only a few months or a year is not necessarily enough to know what they wouldn’t do, especially if the relationship turns sour at some point.

    Like

  81. Balance December 17, 2014 at 00:47 #

    Are you feeling oppressed by all that techno-whatsits language? Vehicle rape!

    Like

  82. caprizchka December 17, 2014 at 01:38 #

    LOL. It’s “better” because it has the Green Dot seal of approval.

    Like

  83. comslave (@comslave) December 17, 2014 at 08:48 #

    You’re assuming you have that option. Gender politics has taken trust away from us.

    Like

  84. Jack Strawb December 17, 2014 at 09:07 #

    Thanks for commenting. Yup, i had no doubt whatever that the stats were padded. The only question was “in what manner?”

    Of the many unfortunate things about how rape has been politicized (even the FBI folds “attempted rape” into “rape” in its final year-end statistics, something very few people seem to be aware of. There’s not just a huge difference in the offenses, too, but the former is a much more subjective matter than the latter).

    Like

  85. Jack Strawb December 17, 2014 at 09:11 #

    I respectfully disagree. Anyone behaving in the 1970s like the girl did in your example would have been sent to the principal’s office for a discussion on courtesy.

    The main problems with changing approaches to bullying are twofold. 1) self-defense is being de-emphasized, and 2) boys will once again be instructed that it’s their job to protect girls.

    Like

  86. Jack Strawb December 17, 2014 at 09:17 #

    [rolls eyes] Heh. Color me deeply skeptical. Anything so badly stated is likely either 1) a quick cash grab, dependent on manipulating people’s better nature through warm buzzwords, or 2) badly understood by the very people who developed the website.

    In either case, I’m taking my big donation bucks elsewhere.

    Liked by 1 person

  87. That_Susan December 17, 2014 at 13:39 #

    Well, if I really believed that the gender I was attracted to was completely untrustworthy, I’d still have options, though I realize those options would be severely limited. I’m just saying that for me personally, I’d rather not have sex at all than have sex with someone I couldn’t trust.

    Like

  88. That_Susan December 17, 2014 at 13:41 #

    True.

    Like

  89. That_Susan December 17, 2014 at 14:03 #

    She may have been sent to the principal’s office if a teacher had even happened to notice. In my experience as a “picked on” kid in the Seventies, there was a lot that teachers either didn’t notice or didn’t choose to notice, and some school staff seemed to feel a lot more annoyance towards me for not being able to cope on my own, than they did towards the bullies who they saw as just behaving like “natural kids.”

    But my point with the example I gave was not whatever the teacher did or didn’t do about the situation — it was the fact that among MOST KIDS, it’s no longer seen as normal to ostracize someone for being different. In earlier times, special needs kids were often kept separate from the general population because it was felt that “normal” kids just couldn’t be expected to accept anyone who was different — but we have learned that when we change our expectations and assume that our kids CAN develop empathy at an early age — voila, they can!

    But again, I don’t think the idea of bystander intervention was invented by Green Dot. I think it’s been around a while longer than they have. As far as boys defending girls, what I’m seeing happen is that people are defending people.

    And with your example about the principal’s office — most teens care a lot more about what their peers think of them than they do about what teachers or principals think. Which is why bystander intervention among peer groups is so much more effective.

    Like

  90. That_Susan December 17, 2014 at 14:23 #

    Rape used to be seen as one man defiling another man’s property, because women were viewed as the property of either their husband’s or their fathers. There are a few VERY conservative Christians today who will say that raping a woman is no different than having consensual sex with a woman you’re not married to, which I think is a carryover from the times when marriage was kind of like a deed of sale — an affectionate father would most likely listen to his daughter’s preferences regarding suitors, but there was no legal requirement for a girl or woman to consent to being married off to someone.

    In that context, raping a woman resulted in her being damaged property. A father couldn’t get the same bride price for an non-virgin daughter, and a husband no longer had the thrill of knowing that his wife had never experienced any man but him.

    You’re right that our society’s gone through a huge upheaval in its views on women and sexuality. We’re even realizing that men and boys can raped, too. Rape isn’t a women’s issue, it’s a human rights issue.

    Like

  91. Jim December 17, 2014 at 23:28 #

    Because they’re pathetic little beta simps.

    Like

  92. Jim December 17, 2014 at 23:37 #

    “When I was a young teenager, I was groped and fingered in the swimming pool against my will by boys I knew from school. I was mad but it wasn’t that big a deal.”

    Glad you didn’t make a mountain out of a molehill.

    “I have a dear friend who I have not seen for years. She had a bit of a drinking problem. She was sexually molested twice while drinking because she was too incapacitated to stop it. She also had a habit of leaving her car door open and things were stolen from her. But she understood her own responsibility for what happened to her even if she had difficulty changing her behavior.”

    She needed to be more responsible. It looks like she realized that.

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. My car was stolen last night – #ListenAndBelieve | Manosphere.com - December 13, 2014

    […] My car was stolen last night – #ListenAndBelieve […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: