Amanda Brunker article about Hugh Hefner

Lux23 · 07-11-2017 1:15pm

anna080 wrote: »

Maybe no one responded because quite frankly, your post was extremely confrontational and aggressive despite the delicate content. Maybe if you want posters to engage with you, don't come at them and drop bombs in such an antagonistic way. I wouldn't blame anyone for not responding to that. I'm really getting sick of seeing people replying to posters in that particular style- it's so distasteful not to mind extremely unfair. Sorry but that is no way to engage with a poster.

They won't engage with me either way. They just don't want to listen to victims and that is why sexual harassment/abuse will continue to be an issue.

retro:electro · 07-11-2017 1:17pm

Lux23 wrote: »

They won't engage with me either way. They just don't want to listen and that is why sexual harassment/abuse will continue to be an issue.

That's why it will continue? No, I really don't think a few posters not quoting or thanking your post will have any effect on the perpetuation of sexual harassment or abuse, thankfully.

Lux23 · 07-11-2017 1:21pm

Listen to victims of abuse and harassment in general.

Saruhashi · 07-11-2017 2:10pm

Lux23 wrote: »

I shared the experiences of myself and women I know. Everyone here told me why they shouldn't believe me or these stories. There are long-winded posts about critical thinking and how my attitude stinks so why would anyone believe me. That is as much as calling me a liar.

It's not that people shouldn't believe you.

People are free to believe or not. That's up to them.

You can't seriously think you can demand that they believe you. Especially if they don't know you.

Maybe everyone should just believe. Maybe that's the "right" thing to do.

Why am I being asked, almost forced at this point, to believe the stories of people I've never even met?

Lux23 wrote: »

Listen to victims of abuse and harassment in general.

Right but how can I know if they really are victims? Just because they say they are?

Again, you are demanding that people listen and believe without giving them any reason to. What difference does it make if some random dude on the internet believes you or not.

Of course, if a close friend or relative said to you "I don't believe you" then there is a serious issue there and it's going to be difficult to accept that they have called you a liar.

Even if an internet stranger outright calls you a liar, so what?

I understand my obligations to friends and family. I have fully committed to my relationships with them and we have built up trust and love and respect. So OF COURSE if they were to come to me with a story like yours I would believe without question.

I am seriously not understanding my obligation to complete strangers. WHY must I believe them? What's in it for me and what's in it for them? What if they are lying?

Saruhashi · 07-11-2017 2:24pm

Lux23 wrote: »

They won't engage with me either way. They just don't want to listen to victims and that is why sexual harassment/abuse will continue to be an issue.

OK. So we believe everyone.

Let's say then that a woman accuses my best friend of sexual harassment or abuse.

I love him but this hurts me so I shun him. I believe her and I cut all contact with him believing he is scum of the Earth.

His employer feels the same way. So do future potential employers. Believe women. He can't find work.

His wife and kids leave him. Believe women. Just listen.

Sadly, he kills himself and it's not the romantic Hollywood suicide. Nah, it's messy and brutal and he died horribly. Alone and in pain. Listen to women. Believe people who claim they are victims.

Then it comes out that the woman was lying.

How am I not in the wrong there? I should have NEVER believed her. I didn't know her.

I just believed because I was told to. It was hammered into me. Believe women or face the shame of being an unbeliever.

No. She should have been forced to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that she was a victim. THEN we believe.

I will not just believe a story because that's what society says we should do.

I'll listen and I'll offer all the platitudes that we're supposed to offer but if something about the story feels "off" to me then you can be damn sure I'll be skeptical until convinced otherwise.

07-11-2017 2:44pm

Lux23 wrote: »

Listen to victims of abuse and harassment in general.

This is what I don't quite understand. I'm in my 40s now, and I can remember when Ireland was still quite traditional, with reasonably clear gender roles, and there wasn't that much public airing of sexual abuse and harassment for anyone. We didn't speak about it, and it was generally hushed in the media.

However, over the last 20 years, all that has changed. The behavior of the Catholic church, the abuses that have been revealed and the popularity of feminist ideas in government policies, have seen a massive change in the way society views both abuse and harassment. The laws have been changed to help females more, our media reports quite often to the bad behavior of males, there are magazines aplenty with articles for women, with social media catching up quickly in the fight for women's rights, along with Feminist theory classes in universities, and even talk of gender re-education for boys being introduced (like in parts of the UK)... etc.

So, I do wonder about the idea that we're not listening to claims of harassment or abuse. Fact is... I doubt there's been a period in our history, as a species, when we've spent so much attention on that very issue.

Lastly... Your claim. You're using the internet, and the internet is widely known as a breeding ground for wild claims and extreme ideas. While I'm not suggesting that you provide links to prove your claims... you should be familiar enough with the resistance to accepting anything at face value on boards.

BTW... I don't believe or disbelieve you. That's why I didn't post earlier. It's not that I don't care about harassment or abuse... It's simply that I prefer such claims to be verified before making any judgements.

Permabear · 07-11-2017 2:53pm

This post has been deleted.

Lux23 · 07-11-2017 3:56pm

So, to be clear what is more of a problem in Irish society, people making up stories about rape or harassment or people actually suffering harassment or abuse? Which do you believe is more prevalent?

07-11-2017 4:16pm

Lux23 wrote: »

So, to be clear what is more of a problem in Irish society, people making up stories about rape or harassment or people actually suffering harassment or abuse? Which do you believe is more prevalent?

Why does there have to be a choice between the two? This is my problem with these kinds of posts. It's an aggressive attitude that says if you want claims to be verified as being true before passing judgment, then you must also feel that the majority are false.

Both are serious problems in Irish society.

Permabear · 07-11-2017 4:19pm

This post has been deleted.

Lux23 · 07-11-2017 4:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Why does there have to be a choice between the two? This is my problem with these kinds of posts. It's an aggressive attitude that says if you want claims to be verified as being true before passing judgment, then you must also feel that the majority are false.

Both are serious problems in Irish society.

OK, so can you provide me with many instances of where a person has been prosecuted for making up a rape allegation in Ireland? Or can you point me to research that shows this is a serious problem in Ireland?

Lux23 · 07-11-2017 4:26pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree with you on the second point to a degree, but just because people are using the #metoo hashtag to discredit victims doesn't mean that it is invaluable.

Wibbs · 07-11-2017 4:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Why does there have to be a choice between the two?

Because western society, especially online(and is spilling over into the real world in some cases) is becoming more and more polarised. Nuance is leaking away. Grey areas are either ignored or battlefields in the again increasing echo chambers, where any questions posed beyond the local catechism are vilified. You're either for us wholesale or you're against us wholesale. And that goes for damn near every politic and gender stuff. All sides are increasingly subjective, some to the point of narcissism(which is also on the rise).

Look at a "Red Pill" Facebook page or forum or sub and you will see this writ large. I remember reading one such forum a while back and what really stood out was how so many of the users had been banned and these weren't one post seagull posters or trolls, but long time members with high "reps" and thanks. Just because they crossed an echo chamber line and poof! gone. You will see exactly the same in "feminist" forums, or "left wing" forums or "right wing forums" and so forth.

People want a black and white world. One where all are in general agreement. It's simpler and people like simplicity, they like an enemy and a friend in people and ideas, black hats and white hats, that they can readily identify.

Wibbs · 07-11-2017 4:35pm

Lux23 wrote: »

OK, so can you provide me with many instances of where a person has been prosecuted for making up a rape allegation in Ireland? Or can you point me to research that shows this is a serious problem in Ireland?

Here's two that made it to an enquiry. Proving a false rape allegation is nearly as difficult as proving a case of non stranger violent type rapes with no witnesses. Quite the number of rape cases have been thrown out of court. Many have been down to insufficient evidence of course and the guy was guilty, but equally how many were simply false? We don't know and naturally the legal profession and folks who work with rape victims don't want to promote the idea that it's a problem, as it would lead to even fewer coming forward. In the UK there have been a string of cases where false rape allegations were taken seriously, went before the courts and convictions and gaol time handed down. On a personal note I know of two examples down the years that were highly dubious claims and the Guards quietly dropped them on that basis.

How many actually happen? We don't know, though I would personally think it's low enough a number and the majority accusations have merit and should go before the courts. I certainly don't buy the "red pill" types who claim mad percentages. In US college campuses where proof isn't in the dictionary of review boards I can see many more alright, but in the real world? No.

07-11-2017 4:39pm

Lux23 wrote: »

OK, so can you provide me with many instances of where a person has been prosecuted for making up a rape allegation in Ireland? Or can you point me to research that shows this is a serious problem in Ireland?

Before I go looking across the internet for links, I'm wondering if you understand why false allegations are such a terrible thing to do? For both the movement to reduce rape/harassment and to the accused themselves...

(Although I did do a quick search and got something from 2009
https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/ireland-has-highest-rate-of-false-rape-allegations-26532287.html

I'm pretty sure that you won't accept that link, but I'd rather not spend time researching things if you've already decided the issue)

EDIT: Just to note something. When I said a serious issue or serious problem, I'm not talking about high numbers. Rape is a serious charge, and it should be a serious charge, but any false claims regardless of the % is a serious issue.

Saruhashi · 07-11-2017 4:43pm

Lux23 wrote: »

So, to be clear what is more of a problem in Irish society, people making up stories about rape or harassment or people actually suffering harassment or abuse? Which do you believe is more prevalent?

The actual instances of rape and harassment are the bigger problem in Irish society, obviously.

OK. I, an internet stranger, believe your stories and the stories of all women. Is the problem now solved?

Obviously not. So why not?

You seem to think that because people may not necessarily believe an anecdote or an accusation that this in some way contributes to the problem. That doesn't make any sense.

It's perfectly natural that a person would be skeptical of other people that they don't know. You might ask them to suppress that skepticism but the likely outcome is that they will just nod and offer sympathy but will not actually do much to fix the problem.

You can shame them into "believing" but you won't be able to shame them into acting because deep down they will consider the possibility that they are being lied to. This is simply because lying is part of human nature and we ALL know it.

I would ask you what should the punishment be for anyone who commits acts of rape or harassment?

With the relative severity or leniency of your suggested punishment in mind, what level of proof should be required before the punishment is administered?

While considering the previous two answers what steps should we take to avoid abuses of the system? For example, if there is a woman with a severe hatred for people of a certain race how can we make sure that she doesn't use our justice system as a tool of oppression?

So we agree that it's a major problem in society but we are probably not in agreement about what should be done to solve the problem.

I think a good place to start would be asking how simply just believing every anecdote and accusation would help fix the problem? It doesn't really matter if 100% of us believe. If there is zero evidence then clearly there won't be a criminal conviction and it really is all for nothing.

Or are you saying that we should believe PLUS we should petition the government to change our justice system? Change it to what? At what cost? See my questions above.

I think this conversation often comes down to the uncomfortable truth that we are really asking innocent men to "take one for the team" so that society as a whole (but especially women) can benefit. Historically, our species does that quite a lot.

So if we believe every story and accusation then we have a 100% conviction rate so long as the woman reports a crime and names a perpetrator. This probably doesn't eradicate the crime entirely (just as capital punishment is not an infallible deterrent) and probably would disturbingly lead to a massive spike in murders.

A system like this would significantly reduce the rate of the offence being committed. A man knows if he is accused then it's all over and so he will definitely think twice about pushing boundaries.

What is the acceptable cost of this? If we lock up 1 thousand sex offenders and 100 wrongly accused men is that acceptable?

If we maybe only lock up 1 innocent man per 1000 actual criminals? Is that OK?

Would you watch your friend or brother or father going to jail for a crime they maybe didn't commit but feel it's OK because the greater good requires that we just "believe victims"?

I think that ultimately that's where this logic leads. We either believe no one and demand that evidence is provided to support claims. Or we believe everyone and the small percentage of false convictions, and ruined lives, are the acceptable cost of a safe society.

Lux23 · 07-11-2017 4:49pm

So 9 out of 100 rape allegations are false, but that means 91 were genuine, so how are these problems even on an equal footing? Granted that is a high figure, but still not as high as the number of rapes.

07-11-2017 4:52pm

Lux23 wrote: »

So 9 out of 100 rape allegations are false, but that means 91 were genuine, so how are these problems even on an equal footing? Granted that is a high figure, but still not as high as the number of rapes.

I thought this was going to be an open discussion but you're definitely playing an angle.

I'm out.

Saruhashi · 07-11-2017 4:57pm

Lux23 wrote: »

OK, so can you provide me with many instances of where a person has been prosecuted for making up a rape allegation in Ireland? Or can you point me to research that shows this is a serious problem in Ireland?

I think that's a fair question.

I imagine that the number of false allegations is small. I don't think we can say it's a serious problem "in Ireland" but I am certain it's a serious problem for anyone who is falsely accused.

I am certain that somewhere in the Irish prison system right now there are a few people who were wrongfully convicted.

The real question is what level of wrongful convictions are we willing to live with?

If you are unwilling to accept even a single wrongful conviction then the entire "listen and believe" perspective has to instantly fall away.

If you are will to commit to a certain acceptable level of wrongful convictions then you have to put safeguards in place and normally the safeguards will erode the absoluteness of "listen and believe".

Sure, looking at the island as a whole it is clearly not a serious problem BUT you can't say to the family of the guy who killed himself over a false claim that it's "not a serious issue".

If there is 1 false claim per 100 true claims. Are you OK with that?
What about 2 false claims per 100 true claims?
What about 1 in 10?

At what point would you say "OK, this is a serious problem?"

Would you accept that the easier it is for people to abuse a system and get away with it then the more likely it is that they will abuse the system?

Saruhashi · 07-11-2017 5:03pm

Lux23 wrote: »

So 9 out of 100 rape allegations are false, but that means 91 were genuine, so how are these problems even on an equal footing? Granted that is a high figure, but still not as high as the number of rapes.

What do we do with those 9 people who were wrongfully accused?

Do we say "listen buddy, I know this is unfair and I know your life is ruined but you need to understand for every guy like you there are 10 rape victims so you are helping society in the long run"?

It's not SUCH a high figure, really. Certainly not as high as the number of rapes.

There is obviously a moral question here though.

How many innocent people should we willing to sacrifice to achieve your proposed goals? (I assume your goal is either complete eradication of the crime or 100% conviction rate)

Lux23 · 07-11-2017 5:06pm

I think I made a fair point there and of course, I have an angle.

Lux23 · 07-11-2017 5:15pm

Saruhashi wrote: »

How many innocent people should we willing to sacrifice to achieve your proposed goals? (I assume your goal is either complete eradication of the crime or 100% conviction rate)

I don't think any innocent person needs to be sacrificed. You don't need to join the baying mob with your pitchfork, but what you can do is look at the figures and accept that there does appear to be a disproportionate amount of men committing these crimes over women. What I struggle with is that people seem to think that we should just accept that certain men will always rape and that there is nothing we can do about it. It is not up to other men to police that behaviour, but I certainly think more men need to question it.

And to be fair, women need to question why some women make up lies like this. Vindictiveness in women is an issue in our relationships with men, that is for sure.

Saruhashi · 07-11-2017 5:30pm

Lux23 wrote: »

I don't think any innocent person needs to be sacrificed. You don't need to join the baying mob with your pitchfork, but what you can do is look at the figures and accept that there does appear to be a disproportionate amount of men committing these crimes over women. What I struggle with is that people seem to think that we should just accept that certain men will always rape and that there is nothing we can do about it. It is not up to other men to police that behaviour, but I certainly think more men need to question it.

More men do question it. The problem is that we can't necessarily commit to "listen and believe" because we also think that if someone accused us of a crime that we didn't commit then we really wouldn't want society to just listen and believe.

It's far easier for me to empathize with a man who is falsely accused than it is for me to feel any kind of kinship with a rapist. You see what I'm getting at?

So while I might say "lock him up an throw away the key" there's that little niggling part of the brain that says "hey, what if it was you and you didn't do it, look at the evidence here".

So what happens with a #metoo situation? Thousands of women telling their stories. However, it's thousands of women I've never met. Should I believe them? Should I just shut up?

We can definitely do something to solve the problem. At what cost though?

This is what #metoo and the thousands of articles it spawned doesn't even really begin to address. How do we fix it?

Start by believing? OK. Now what? I'm already in too deep because I am believing people I don't know. How can I know they are trustworthy?

Thing is, we have always known that rape is a problem and we have never accepted it.

How do we fix the problem and is there a point where the cost of fixing the problem could potentially be too high?

How accepting should we be of bad ideas that are driven by good intentions?

Lux23 · 07-11-2017 5:43pm

I can see your point Saruhashi. I can see how it is easier to fixate on the experience of some poor bloke who is accused of rape and has his whole life turned upside down and that you don't really want to consider what creates a rapist. But we have seen great social change in recent years, not so long ago a man could legally rape and beat his wife, a mother could beat her children to a pulp, surely it was people questioning that in the media/society and sharing their stories that changed that?

Permabear · 07-11-2017 6:12pm

This post has been deleted.

tritium · 07-11-2017 7:17pm

Lux23 wrote: »

So 9 out of 100 rape allegations are false, but that means 91 were genuine, so how are these problems even on an equal footing? Granted that is a high figure, but still not as high as the number of rapes.

Um no, it doesn't. There are also those grey area cases where both parties genuinely disagree on whether consent was in place. It would be disingenuous in the extreme to call them genuine cases.

Edit; difficult as it may be for someone who sees themswlves as the victim, theyre also the cases where burden of proof is particularly difficult

johnnyskeleton · 07-11-2017 8:57pm

Lux23 wrote: »

I don't think any innocent person needs to be sacrificed. You don't need to join the baying mob with your pitchfork, but what you can do is look at the figures and accept that there does appear to be a disproportionate amount of men committing these crimes over women.

When it comes to non s.4 rape, 100% of rape is committed by men on women. This is because the offence can only be committed by a man on a woman.

What I struggle with is that people seem to think that we should just accept that certain men will always rape and that there is nothing we can do about it.

There is something we can do about it - its called the criminal justice system.

It is not up to other men to police that behaviour,

Well it is if those other men are policemen i.e. the people that society has hired to ensure that the rapists are caught and tried.

but I certainly think more men need to question it

Question what exactly?

And to be fair, women need to question why some women make up lies like this. Vindictiveness in women is an issue in our relationships with men, that is for sure.

I strongly disagree. Women are generally more critical/skeptical of other women, but it is not vindictiveness. And outside of internet feminist circles, normal women do question whether an account of rape is true or not. Generally speaking in a rape trial the prosecution will want male jurors and the defence will want female jurors. Because the female jurors will be more cautious about believing the female complainant.

Lux23 · 08-11-2017 10:54am

OK then, say we leave every rape accusation that isn't proven in a court of law aside and we just look at rape convictions. Would you listen to those victims? Do you consider what they have to say?

Saruhashi · 08-11-2017 11:29am

Lux23 wrote: »

OK then, say we leave every rape accusation that isn't proven in a court of law aside and we just look at rape convictions. Would you listen to those victims? Do you consider what they have to say?

Of course.

What is the end goal here though? To eradicate the crime entirely, I assume?

Where do we begin with that? Listening to the victims can only be the first step and it seems clear to me that we are already doing that. Rape convictions are reported on the news, are they not? Statistics are announced at regular intervals too, right?

Society DOES listen to victims. However we never REALLY talk about solving the problem.

The main players in the conversation seem to be the George Hook types who will say "why did she go to his room" (or whatever dumb comment he made) or The Guardian types who will say "teach men not to rape".

We can't really get anywhere with that.

tritium · 08-11-2017 11:29am

Lux23 wrote: »

OK then, say we leave every rape accusation that isn't proven in a court of law aside and we just look at rape convictions. Would you listen to those victims? Do you consider what they have to say?

Yes just as I'd listen to any victim of crime. I'm not sure of your point though? Would I for example seek to base an approach to tackling the issue exclusively on what they say, no. Would it be one thing that influenced it, absolutely

Lux23 · 08-11-2017 3:37pm

I was just curious, essentially you don't have a problem with the message as long as the person delivering it can prove they were raped. So, would you take on board what is in this article?

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/rape-survivor-george-hook-s-words-are-part-of-a-wider-problem-1.3218633

Saruhashi · 08-11-2017 4:39pm

Lux23 wrote: »

I was just curious, essentially you don't have a problem with the message as long as the person delivering it can prove they were raped. So, would you take on board what is in this article?

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/rape-survivor-george-hook-s-words-are-part-of-a-wider-problem-1.3218633

Quite a lot to unpack here, I think.

I'd start with the sentencing which seems ridiculously lenient. That's my initial reaction to hearing that a guy who was found guilty of several counts of rape and assault only did 11 months in prison. A serious WTF moment there.

This is an issue within the law and nothing really to do with "rape culture", as the writer puts it.

Firstly, what is the logic behind the initial 7 years suspended sentence? Does this logic also apply to other crimes? Is it possible to get a suspended sentence for murder or negligent driving or assault etc. It seems unbelievably lenient so how was this decision reached exactly?

Secondly, what was the reasoning behind the change from 7 years suspended to 15 months in prison and then why did he only serve 11 months? What was the basis of the appeal and why was the appeal successful to that degree? How does this compare to other criminal cases etc? Again 15 months seems unbelievably lenient but we see people walking free after assaults and the like so I'd need a full explanation.

That's me only 2 paragraphs into the article and there are a whole range of questions that I feel could only be sufficiently answered by a legal professional and probably it would take some time for me to understand those answers.

The problem here, in my view, is that the Irish Times is holding up a victim of a crime as an expert on that crime when realistically we need an actual legal expert to understand exactly what's going on here. I certainly wouldn't be willing to ask this lady tough questions regarding the sentencing of her rapist.
So I'd be inclined to just shut up and let her have her say. Nobody learns anything here. Except that lenient sentencing is a thing, but I think we all know that already.

You see what I'm getting at here? She's an expert on her story and if you wanted to know WHAT happened in that case then you'd ask her. If you wanted to know WHY it happened? I dunno. Is she the person to ask?

We move on to George Hook and this takes us well outside of legal territory and into opinions. George Hook states a stupid opinion and this lady wants us to accept that opinions like that are part of the problem.

OK. What are her credentials here to show that she understands the problem and that she is qualified to tell anyone what is and is not part of the problem? She is a victim of the problem, no doubt, but is she an authority?

The premise here seems to be that because she was a victim of a crime she understands the root causes of the crime and has some kind of insight into possible solutions.

I'm not seeing it though. It's appalling what happened to her and the sentencing is an absolute disgrace but I'm not sure any of this makes her an authority on the subject outside of her own personal experience.

I get that she is now working in mental health research but I don't get how this all manages to link together the crimes committed against her, the lenient sentencing and George Hooks dumb comments.

She says victims need one thing, "belief".

This will fall apart instantly in a court of law though. How can a judge sentence someone for a crime when nobody can ask for details of the crime?

If asking questions actually means "I don't believe you" and we don't ask questions then do we just have one standard crime of "rape" and administer the exact same sentence regardless of circumstances?

It all starts to fall apart and there are too many questions that keep coming up.

How can you decide to go and speak to the media about your experiences but also say to them "I don't want to answer questions, I just want to tell my story"? Surely journalists have a responsibility to ask questions? Especially hard questions?

Reading this article I can't help but feel that the main question here is how the hell this dude only spends 11 months in prison.

I honestly feel it would be better for all of us if we had an expert there explaining why it was only 11 months and then we can decide if that is unacceptable and then we can go to the government and say we want changes here.

Instead we got "she's a victim so she's an expert and she thinks George Hook is part of the problem so there you go" and the whole time I am thinking 11 months is disgraceful and maybe it should be the judge under the spotlight instead of George Hook.

Am I way out of line here?

tritium · 08-11-2017 4:39pm

Lux23 wrote: »

I was just curious, essentially you don't have a problem with the message as long as the person delivering it can prove they were raped. So, would you take on board what is in this article?

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/rape-survivor-george-hook-s-words-are-part-of-a-wider-problem-1.3218633

I dont know if it's your intention but it kind if feels like your spinning my answer to get where you want it to be. Let me be a bit more explicit.

Everyone is entitled to contribute to the debate on sexual crimes (and indeed on other crimes lest it needs to be said). That includes the victims of the crimes as well as many other groups. They don't need to prove they were raped to have a voice but if they're going to position themselves as a rape survivor then I do think there's a higher bar than 'just believe me'. Thats for everyones sake btw, including other victims whose voice could be drowned out. Our legal system actually gives a voice to victims through victim impact statements.

That said, and especially in an accusation of a crime like rape, 'just believe me' is not really an option. Just believe me says only hear one side of the story and is the complete opposite of our legal system since it implies guilt on someone who by implication doesnt even have right of reply. Thats not to say anyone is lying or making it up-the reality, sad as it may be for the people involved, is that the legal definition of rape and the belief of rape having occured may not always be the same thing.

One thing I'd say from reading the article is, while its understandable its also unreasonable to expect people who want to talk about experiences of a rape victim won't want to discuss their actual experience. It almost feels contradictory that on the one hand the writer says what she wants is belief but she shuns away from telling her story.

Saruhashi · 08-11-2017 5:02pm

Lux23 wrote: »

I was just curious, essentially you don't have a problem with the message as long as the person delivering it can prove they were raped. So, would you take on board what is in this article?

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/rape-survivor-george-hook-s-words-are-part-of-a-wider-problem-1.3218633

I'd actually add here if the severity of the crime has any bearing on whether or not people should ask certain questions?

Say I left the front door unlocked one day and went off to work only to come home to find my gaming PC was gone. Then my wife comes home and she's giving out about it "why didn't you lock the door", "don't you realize how reckless that was", "blah blah blah".

Hey now, I'm the victim of a crime here. Not a serious crime, but still. Nobody was physically injured but I suppose there could be mental health implications.

Of course, I know myself that I'd be thinking "I'm such a dumbass for leaving that door unlocked" and I'd be getting annoyed at people giving out to me and asking why I left the door unlocked and why I didn't check it and what was I doing that made me forget to check it. Are the questions invalid or something? Maybe just irrelevant?

At what stage is a crime serious enough that we would go from "questions will be tolerated" to "do not ask anything, just believe"? How are we making the distinction?

Wibbs · 08-11-2017 6:14pm

Saruhashi wrote: »

At what stage is a crime serious enough that we would go from "questions will be tolerated" to "do not ask anything, just believe"? How are we making the distinction?

It certainly seems the distinction is one of gender for the most part. Like the "always believe women" line that was trending in the US a while back.

From the article:

I categorise this as the “homogeneity of victimhood” in the media. It occurs when the same set of hackneyed descriptions of individuals who have experienced sexual abuse/violence are trotted out each time a new case is discussed. These people who tell their stories, for the most part women, are brave and often articulate. They give heart-rending accounts of their experiences. And yet when they do, they must put up with commentary that suggests they are as culpable as their assailants. Or that they could have prevented their attack. They are told they are promiscuous – as if there is a type of sex that naturally leads to one being raped. They are told in many different ways that, basically, they asked for it.

Citations please. I would like to see an example of this in "the media". For my part I've never seen any article in Irish media saying a victim was "culpable", "promiscuous", or "asking for it". George Hook skirted closest to it and he was mercilessly pilloried in the same media she claims does exactly the same thing, if not worse every time a new case comes along. I'd like to see examples or I'm afraid my first thought is she's seeing things that she wants to see. Well in her first paragraph she uses the term "rape culture" so I near automatically read ahead with that filter in place.

As for questions themselves. Of course society will ask questions. It asks questions of all serious crimes(and not so serious). Questions come up in murder cases, including lurid ones. And victims are often "rated" according to background. EG someone who is a low level drug dealer/junkie gets murdered there is far less sympathy compared to someone innocent who is killed in a gangland crossfire.

tritium wrote:

That said, and especially in an accusation of a crime like rape, 'just believe me' is not really an option. Just believe me says only hear one side of the story and is the complete opposite of our legal system since it implies guilt on someone who by implication doesnt even have right of reply. Thats not to say anyone is lying or making it up-the reality, sad as it may be for the people involved, is that the legal definition of rape and the belief of rape having occured may not always be the same thing.

This. We developed legal systems throughout history to try and wrest judgement from inference, hearsay and from the mob. "Just believe me" is fine as a support mechanism, as a way of judging guilt or innocence it most certainly is not and never should be. Why have trials at all?

Bowlardo · 09-11-2017 8:45am

Saruhashi wrote: »

Quite a lot to unpack here, I think.

I'd start with the sentencing which seems ridiculously lenient. That's my initial reaction to hearing that a guy who was found guilty of several counts of rape and assault only did 11 months in prison. A serious WTF moment there.

This is an issue within the law and nothing really to do with "rape culture", as the writer puts it.

Firstly, what is the logic behind the initial 7 years suspended sentence? Does this logic also apply to other crimes? Is it possible to get a suspended sentence for murder or negligent driving or assault etc. It seems unbelievably lenient so how was this decision reached exactly?

Secondly, what was the reasoning behind the change from 7 years suspended to 15 months in prison and then why did he only serve 11 months? What was the basis of the appeal and why was the appeal successful to that degree? How does this compare to other criminal cases etc? Again 15 months seems unbelievably lenient but we see people walking free after assaults and the like so I'd need a full explanation.

That's me only 2 paragraphs into the article and there are a whole range of questions that I feel could only be sufficiently answered by a legal professional and probably it would take some time for me to understand those answers.

The problem here, in my view, is that the Irish Times is holding up a victim of a crime as an expert on that crime when realistically we need an actual legal expert to understand exactly what's going on here. I certainly wouldn't be willing to ask this lady tough questions regarding the sentencing of her rapist.
So I'd be inclined to just shut up and let her have her say. Nobody learns anything here. Except that lenient sentencing is a thing, but I think we all know that already.

You see what I'm getting at here? She's an expert on her story and if you wanted to know WHAT happened in that case then you'd ask her. If you wanted to know WHY it happened? I dunno. Is she the person to ask?

We move on to George Hook and this takes us well outside of legal territory and into opinions. George Hook states a stupid opinion and this lady wants us to accept that opinions like that are part of the problem.

OK. What are her credentials here to show that she understands the problem and that she is qualified to tell anyone what is and is not part of the problem? She is a victim of the problem, no doubt, but is she an authority?

The premise here seems to be that because she was a victim of a crime she understands the root causes of the crime and has some kind of insight into possible solutions.

I'm not seeing it though. It's appalling what happened to her and the sentencing is an absolute disgrace but I'm not sure any of this makes her an authority on the subject outside of her own personal experience.

I get that she is now working in mental health research but I don't get how this all manages to link together the crimes committed against her, the lenient sentencing and George Hooks dumb comments.

She says victims need one thing, "belief".

This will fall apart instantly in a court of law though. How can a judge sentence someone for a crime when nobody can ask for details of the crime?

If asking questions actually means "I don't believe you" and we don't ask questions then do we just have one standard crime of "rape" and administer the exact same sentence regardless of circumstances?

It all starts to fall apart and there are too many questions that keep coming up.

How can you decide to go and speak to the media about your experiences but also say to them "I don't want to answer questions, I just want to tell my story"? Surely journalists have a responsibility to ask questions? Especially hard questions?

Reading this article I can't help but feel that the main question here is how the hell this dude only spends 11 months in prison.

I honestly feel it would be better for all of us if we had an expert there explaining why it was only 11 months and then we can decide if that is unacceptable and then we can go to the government and say we want changes here.

Instead we got "she's a victim so she's an expert and she thinks George Hook is part of the problem so there you go" and the whole time I am thinking 11 months is disgraceful and maybe it should be the judge under the spotlight instead of George Hook.

Am I way out of line here?

Exceptional post. Worth the read. Completely on point

Amanda Brunker article about Hugh Hefner

Comments