TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Female politician with a history of sexual harassment forced to drop from US House race by DNC.

xtralargerooster

December 15, 2017
2526 upvotes
/r/PussyPassDenied
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article189931704.html
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Female politician with a history of sexual harassment forced to drop from US House race by DNC.
Author

xtralargerooster

Upvotes 2526
Comments 145
Date December 15, 2017 5:36 PM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PussyPassDenied
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/7k17ze/female_politician_with_a_history_of_sexual/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPassDenied/female-politician-with-a-history-of-sexual.1173579
https://theredarchive.com/post/1173579

Comments

[–]salvador_ii 169 points170 points171 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I had a coworker drunkenly grab my ass once, in our office building. Used to work for an ad agency in KC, it’s typical for there to be beer and kegs in the building(the agency keeps it stocked). It sorta caught me off guard, it was kinda flattering. I did find her attractive, which helped. But I would NEVER have done that to her, not at work. That’s asking for trouble.

Point being, women do dumb shit too, as many of you know. They can also abuse their positions and power, people are people.

[–]iskip123 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Damn that alcohol in the office seems like a huge insurance risk.

[–]salvador_ii 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I can see where you’re coming from, it can create awkward situations within an office setting. But advertising is weird, it has to incorporate some degree of creativity. Once an organization needs creatives to help their bottom line and increase their reputation within their industry then they have to start recruiting and catering to those ppl. You’re not gonna help generate great ideas by having a strict, boring, environment. We aren’t accountants, though we did have many on staff. The alcohol was there to add to the ambiance, I didn’t perceive it as a big problem. But who knows.

[–]iskip123 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I mean it's not about that u can have an awesome alcohol free environment that fosters creativity. However liability wise it's a huge liability having people drinking in a workplace.

[–]salvador_ii 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough yo, have a good one

[–]Emily_Postal 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The man was her subordinate apparently. That's a big no no.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Point being, women do dumb shit too, as many of you know. They can also abuse their positions and power, people are people.

The problem we have, is that you'll never get a woman to acknowledge that point.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People are people and ignoring that will set you up for broken expectations.

[–]manmikey 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thats so true, some of the #metoo type things I've also experienced through my life, I've had my crotch grabbed and squeezed in night clubs, I've been frenched kissed against my will (tounge and all) I've been verbally sexually abused by a crowd of women both at work and when out.

In my world these things were just part of life, I never felt I was a victim of anything at the time and I still don't tbh, but with clamour to paint all males as the perpetrators and females as the victims I'm beginning to get wound up by it all

[–][deleted] 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]salvador_ii 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha, nah but good guess. It’d be weird to name the agency, gonna keep that secret me thinks.

[–][deleted] 82 points83 points84 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

"We are in a national moment where rough justice stands in place of careful analysis, nuance and due process.”

I mean she's not wrong lol

[–]xtralargerooster[S] 48 points49 points50 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

No she definitely is not... as many of the replies have already pointed out... this is a PPD with a couple different layers to it... not only is she losing her ability to compete in the race but she's also being treated in some ways with the irrational scrutiny traditionally reserved for men.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

not only is she losing her ability to compete in the race but she's also being treated in some ways with the irrational scrutiny traditionally reserved for men.

Good.

[+]alpharowe3 -24 points-23 points-22 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

reserved for men.

Perhaps then it's not reserved for men.

[–]xtralargerooster[S] 39 points40 points41 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sort of the point of this subreddit friend.

[–]Doomblaze 26 points27 points28 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

you missed the world "traditionally" right before the world "reserved", which changes the meaning of the sentence slightly

[–]bigtfatty 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You mean I have to look at the whole sentence (and maybe sentences before or after) to get meaning and context from the words? That seems like a lot of effort, I'm just gonna punch in one or two words and project my own biases onto them.

[–]FallingSky1 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not on the DNC, you mean.

[–]orphancrippla 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yet she's one of many that supported it wholeheartedly until it came and fucked up her life.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd edit that star wars image with Palpatine talking about irony but I'm too lazy

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The ol' "dose of your own medicine" trick. Works every time.

[–]Jesus_marley 255 points256 points257 points 8 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

"“In its rush to claim the high ground in our roiling national conversation about harassment, the Democratic Party has implemented a zero tolerance standard,” Ramsey said in a statement Friday. “For me, that means a vindictive, terminated employee’s false allegations are enough for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to decide not to support our promising campaign.""

So how's that "listen and believe" working for ya?

[–]HiddenShorts 91 points92 points93 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

We know that only works one way mate. We HAVE to believe women until the man is proven innocent. It's the other way around for men. Clearly.

[–]kihadat 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Doesn’t this prove that’s not the case?

[–]Siganid 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

No, it proves that it is "sometimes" not the case, and in this case the DNC has decided to try and "seize the moral high ground" by pretending it gives a damn about sexual assaults it's been hiding for decades.

[–]AndyGHK -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Regardless of whether they were or weren’t hiding the assaults, they definitely are seizing the high ground either way because they’re actually firing people accused of sexual assault. Republicans supported and voted a self-described serial sex criminal into office. Not a good look.

[–]Siganid 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

"Not a good look" describes incessantly trying to twist a silly brag into something it's very obviously not.

No. Democrats don't have any claim to a moral high ground, and no witch hunt charade will change that.

Especially not one that seeks to deny men equal rights...

[–]AndyGHK 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

They didn’t back a sexual predator for president, and are now doing something about sexual predators in their party. The GOP did, and is not.

That’s really all I need to know so far as moral high ground is considered. Lol.

[–]Siganid 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Guess you missed that 2016 election?

https://youtu.be/0WiQRBN8igE

[–]AndyGHK 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

No, I didn’t.

That’s a good video. I don’t like Hillary either. Her saying someone is a bimbo isn’t sexual assault, and Trump literally confessed to molesting numerous women. So, moral high ground.

https://youtu.be/fYqKx1GuZGg

Edit: I’d say Hillary is now completely irrelevant but I did bring up the election so it’s fair play. What she’s saying is still nowhere near as egregious as what Trump is saying (bragging, even) that he did to numerous models, some of which underage.

[–]Siganid 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Oh, and since I'm sure you hit cognitive dissonance there:

https://youtu.be/ejlmr7zWpUE

No, the party that cheers for that does not get to call other people racist.

And no, the party that says we are obligated to vote by gender does not get to call other people sexist.

The left has no chance to any moral high ground until it fixes it's glaring prejudice problems. It's currently occupied with claiming women are superior to men, which is the opposite direction.

Bonus round: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/365068-exclusive-prominent-lawyer-sought-donor-cash-for-two-trump-accusers

Real accusations don't need cash payments...

[–]Siganid 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Claiming that video is an admission of sexual assault is partisan silliness. If you want a party with the moral high ground, vote libertarian.

Trying to claim the democrats are the good guys is a ludicrous overplayed gambit. Anything bad you claim the republicans have done, the democrats have done twice and then paid someone to accuse a republican of it.

Plus the right is far less racist, and far less sexist. So good luck lying your ass off, but it's been done.

[–]Pervy_Uncle -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hillary's husband is a serial adulterer and sexually harassed numerous women yet she continues to defend him.

[–]Beta_Ray_Bill 50 points51 points52 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Almost like "always believe the victim" is backfiring... How about that?

[–]FreedomFromIgnorance42 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

That’s why they push “believe women” because they want to make it clear men are not entitled to such benefit of the doubt.

[–]kihadat 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Doesn’t this make that untrue?

[–]Siganid 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, see above. Or Lena Dunham.

[–]rarebat 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Male gets caught: I'm sorry for hurting people. I am trying to seek help.

Female gets caught: He's a liar and I'm still perfect.

[–]alpharowe3 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I guess you haven't heard of Roy Moore or Donald Trump.

[–]rarebat 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I guess Louis CK and Howard Weinstein passed you by. If you can find a single female abuser who admits their behaviour, let me know.

[–]alpharowe3 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

List me some to look up.

ALSO:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/exsydney-grammar-school-teacher-so-sorry-for-sex-with-student-20171129-gzvlmp.html

[–]rarebat 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So I don't need to list some for you to look up?

[–]alpharowe3 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I mean we just listed 4 men off the top of our heads. I had to google "sex teacher" to find an example of a woman.

Really the only point I tried to make to you was that people abuse people and some of them apologize and some of them don't. Their genitals don't dictate that 100% of vagina people don't and 100% of penis people do. Which is how you seem to be framing it in your original comments.

[–]rarebat 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, you make good points that I agree with. My original post was rather stupid, just borne out of frustration that she didn't admit it and just smeared the guy instead.

However, regarding your link, there's also a difference between admitting abuse of boys and admitting abuse of adult males. Abuse of adult males by women is something society is very much in denial about. But that's a different discussion.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So all republicans have to do is find someone willing to falsely accuse and that candidate's gone? This is a bad policy.

[–]WAFC 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a great policy!

Signed, someone who doesn't want liberals to have power.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Every last fake accuser needs to be slut shamed inati obscurity. Scorched earth start with that whore allred and her despicable hellspawn lisa bloom.

[–]kihadat 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Even the men?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men cant be victims bcuz patriarchy and muh vagina... didnt u kno?

[–]Uplift_Yourself-12 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

So how's that "listen and believe" working for ya?

Working out pretty well, those of us who want sexual predators to be held accountable want both men and women to be held accountable.

[–]orcscorper 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nobody asked you how "listen and believe" is working for ya. The question was directed at the woman who claimed that the sexual harassment allegations against her were false, because her accuser was vindictive and terminated. As if his termination is evidence that his accusations are false. As if her assertion, without evidence, that he is vindictive invalidates his accusations.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Okay but the comment is clearly directed at people in general.

[–]Jesus_marley 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

if you are referring to my comment, then No, it wasn't.

[–]orphancrippla 53 points54 points55 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

MeToo

[–][deleted] 74 points75 points76 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It's interesting how, when it's women accusing men we MUST BELIEVE THE ACCUSER AT ALL COSTS!!!!

But, when it's men accusing women, they're just disgruntled ex-employees trying to defame them.

Right.

[–]kihadat 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Doesn’t this disprove that?

[–]Luchadorgreen 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Emily's List still "wished her well", not exactly words you give to someone you want to condemn. Clearly they didn't "believe the victim".

[–]WolfofAnarchy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It does. A little.

[+]cgart96 -10 points-9 points-8 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It doesn’t really seem like the popular opinion is that it’s a disgruntled ex-employee trying to defame them. I doubt she would’ve dropped out of the race if it was.

And it’s not uncommon for the same thing to be said about female accusers, don’t act like you’ve never seen that before.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You apparently didn't read her quote.

“Had those allegations, those false allegations, been brought against me directly instead of the company I would have fought to exonerate my name. I never would’ve settled,” Ramsey said in an interview on Thursday. “And I would have sued the disgruntled, vindictive employee for defamation.”

[–]cgart96 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ramsay is the person that was accused though? That’s just one person, the one person to most likely say that, not the popular opinion.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. And it shows the hypocrisy of women.

Generally, women want female accusers to be believed at all costs. Yet, when the genders are reversed, it is the female being accused who is the victim.

No matter which situation she finds herself in, she is the victim regardless.

Absolute idiocy.

[–]EduBA 115 points116 points117 points 8 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

Even when I believe that only rape is "rape", I have to be glad of the termination of her political career because of the climate of "Tit for Tat" that feminism has forced upon us.

[–]Muh-So-Gin-Knee 76 points77 points78 points 8 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. Let the feminists reap what they have sown.

I can hear their cries now, "But those rules were only supposed to apply to men! REEEEEEEEEEEE!"

[–]canitakemybraoffyetIm with HER 46 points47 points48 points 8 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

I'm a feminist and I think this is great. Sexual predators - of either gender - should reap the consequences of their actions.

[–]Muh-So-Gin-Knee 19 points20 points21 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Your comment proves that you don't even understand an ideology you espouse. My comment didn't mean that now women were being held to the same standard as men and that feminists don't like that. My comment ment that women are now suffering under the "guilty until proven innocent" system we now have, relative to all things sexual, thanks to feminism. Feminists have successfully destroyed due process. #metoo #believewomen

I find it absolutely, unbelievably cathartic to hear that woman complaining about how a "false allegation" and a "lack of due process" screwed her over. Welcome to equality with men honey! Men have been suffering under that yoke for over 10 years now. Thanks feminisim!

[–]canitakemybraoffyetIm with HER 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

But I'm not complaining, I'm saying this is great.

[–]xtralargerooster[S] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You clearly aren't attempting to be controversial and so I thank you for having an open mind even if some on this subreddit have allowed their passions to run amok.

If I may attempt to clear up the confusion here. The major point that the poster you have replied to is attempting to make is that feminist rhetoric has brought us to a point that the merest utterance of an accusation towards a person is now caustic to that person's well being. You seem to be focusing on the point that as a feminist you feel it's good that this standard is being applied equally. Most here would argue that the standard is atrocious whether it is applied to only men, only women, or everyone. In fact a few centuries of American Civics and Law have consistently reinforced the concepts of Habeaus Corpus and Due Process and new feminist rhetoric appears to encourage disregarding the justice system as long as the populace is angry enough at the accusations made.

So while you think it's a good thing for this Democrat to be walked away from politics using the same standard that would be applied to a male, most of us would rather see her treated fairly even if her political views are corrosive because we value the ethics that our Republic was founded upon.

[–]canitakemybraoffyetIm with HER 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Do you not think eye-witness testimony should count as evidence? I know that it's flawed, but it still counts as evidence in a court of law.

The reason I ask is because in cases of sexual harassment, there is very typically no other evidence. There aren't cameras pointing in the corners of conference rooms or in your boss's office, they don't do it while other people are listening or watching, that's the point.

So what do we do then? How do we approach this problem? Because it is a problem. I admit that I'm biased because I work in one of the most gender-divided industries still around (the creative department of an advertising agency) and honestly I don't know a single female coworker that hasn't experienced harassment at some point in their careers. Including me, all the freaking time. It's unavoidable, you can quit sure but every company in this industry is like this, so you either give up on your dream job or you learn to stomach it.

I realize that false accusations happen, and when an accusation is taken as fact, very dangerous things can happen, but what's the alternative? We KNOW that this is happening all over the place, I see it every day, and while we also know that false accusations happen, when compared to the rate of actual incidents the numbers pale in comparison. So which issue is more serious? The seemingly endless amount of actual sexual harassment, or the statistically few false accusations? It's not ideal but we have to pick one, unless there's an alternative but I just don't see it.

[–]xtralargerooster[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

If you believe that the answer is as black and white as you propose then it is obvious why you feel the way that you do about the topic. I'm not going to throw shade at you over your opinion because it clear that you are well intending. I'm not sure why you feel like we have to choose one or the other when we don't apply that standard against any other crimes.

You have definitely identified this issue as extremely nuanced correctly. And I'm more than assuredly not going to please you with the answer I'm about to give you but please attempt to see that I'm well intended in providing you my proposal.

First, we must not demand a perfect justice system. It's impossible to have. No matter how well constructed a justice system will always produce errors that allow criminals to walk free and innocents to be jailed. But the American Justice system is specifically weighted to be in favor of the criminal because it is a strong American belief that a system that incarcerates and punishes the innocent is far more atrocious than a system that allows criminals to walk among us. The fact of the matter is that even if you did have a system weighted the other direction you still could not eliminate crime or reduce criminals, and you would drastically increase the number of innocents punished.

Secondly, Americans must take more ownership for their own safety. This is the first ideological pillar of being free people. The #teachmennottorape might seem like a solution and is even logically sound standing on it's own. But when the irrationality of human societies is applied to it it quickly falls apart. The real solution is education that teaches people to recognize when a crime is being committed, teaches people how to appropriately document and report it, and teaches people to avoid emboding statistically significantly traits of being targeted and subsequently victimized. Unfortunately in today's climate the media is quick to call these behaviors victim-shaming. Reality doesn't really care if you think you should be able to drunkingly walk home at night alone wearing nearly nothing, but unfortunately if someone suggests that this is incredibly high risk to be so vulnerable that person would be conflated to accessory of the predator who attacked her even if they concede that she should have had the right to do it.

Third, and this is something that is actually occurring, is to reject any cultural appropriation that the behavior is acceptable. A society that accepts a behavior is a society that provides no measure for that behavior. If America was actually sexist, then no one would show any concern for when sexist things happen. The fact that these behaviors are being reported and outrage is enveloping our culture is part of the process of actually changing it. People must realize that as people grow intolerant of these behaviors they begin to report them more frequently. Increasing the number of reports does not correlate with the behavior becoming more prevalent... in fact the opposite is more likely to be concluded accurately. We see more incidents reported because the culture is becoming more aware of these behaviors and are less accepting of them. Increased reporting = progress. The danger in feminism is that the demand that initiated the change is based entirely on gender when the issue is not a gendered issue. Sexual harassment of women isn't more prevalent because men are purely toxic. It's more common because women were less prevalent in the workforce. Now that women have more presence they are also statistically more capable of being the aggressors and if we don't apply the same standards that the feminist movements of yesteryear fought for equally then we are creating an environment for victimhood of men. To me that is incredible dangerous.

So the answer I'll give you in summary is that we will never be in a society that is free from harassment or false accusations. In order to deal with that fact we must first reject the notion that these behaviors are acceptable, apply a clearly defined standard evenly for dealing with them, and when the government becomes involved with the squabble and tribulations among individuals it must always err in favor of the perpetrator. We must abandon the notion that any other solution is achievable and start taking responsibility for our individual safety by educating each other and our children with common sense understanding about how the crime is defined, how to take measures to reduce becoming a victim, and then how to responsibly document and report the crime in the unfortunate event they become a victim. Beyond everything else we must reinforce that feeling like a victim is not the same as being a victim and stop acting like loosely defining the legal definitions of crimes is beneficial to us as a whole.

We are in a new chapter of growth in our society, its fuckin messy and uncomfortable... but I truly believe that we are growing for the better.

A few hundred years ago villages would be pillaged by raiders that would murder all the men and rape all the women. The early feminist movements pushed for a lot of social change that improved life for women, but much of it was at the expense of men. That just seems to continue into our current saga as I see people continue to act as if a woman being raped is more heinous than a man being murdered.

[–]canitakemybraoffyetIm with HER 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, I agree with almost everything you said.

Except one big thing, that I think you may be misunderstanding. I do NOT want these cases treated any differently than all other crimes. But in all other crimes, eye-witness testimony counts as evidence, and often people are convicted on nothing more.

If I'm mugged and point out the man that mugged me and can prove he was there at that time and everything, that's a conviction. For some reason, people doubt eye-witness testimony of rape victims and sexual harassment more than other crimes, especially publically. This is proven in a million ways, like the 12,000 rape kits they just found in detroit untested because the cops didn't believe the victims and just hid them away instead of testing them. They've identified over a hundred serial rapists already from these kits.

Now things are changing, you're right, people are starting to care, the pendulum is swinging the other way. And as I feel for almost all issues history has presented us with, in order for the pendulum to reach equilibrium, it will go through a period where it swings the other way for a bit. That's where we are now. It's necessary, I believe, for us to reach equality.

[–]xtralargerooster[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It appears we agree... I'm not certain it was misunderstanding, but I definitely did not elaborate directly on the argument you made earlier specific to eye witness testimony.

I do feel that you may be working with a broader scope of what it means to take testimony or perhaps we define testimony differently. I say this because the example you provided with the rape kits is actually something separate as far as my understanding of the law extends. As I write that out, I feel it important to offer you an olive branch in saying that your example is far more atrocious an issue than I could fairly express in words and I am not attempting to defend or condone that issue in anyway.

But it is important to understand that testimony offered to a law officer is not testimony at all but just a report of crime. Testimony is sworn to the courts and the process of affirming testimony as evidence is complicated to say the least. I personally feel that it's critical for you to separate these two cases when making this argument and here is why.

A law enforcement officer acts on behalf of the executive branch of government. When an officer is given testimony he is duty bound to investigate whether or not a crime is occurring. If there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred the officer should collect evidence for use by the state should it wish to prosecute. But the officers primary duty is to intervene with crimes that are in progress. A detective or investigators job is specific to the collection and processing of evidence such as the testimony provided by the officer to ensure it is provided to the justice department so that it can be evaluated for its potential to be used as evidence in court. If eye witness testimony makes it to become case evidence at this point it is not exactly the eye witness's account but the officer's testimony that would be admitted at the trial. Even if this game of telephone were played out perfectly you would still have issues with eye witness testimony because of the way that traumatic experiences are reaccounted by the brain.

However in the case you specifically mentioned this isn't even an issue of testimony, but of officers and medical staff impeding justice if they refused to allow the kits to be processed which is a crime already and those officers will need to be dealt with if there is evidence of it. (I haven't read into that story and my blood boils to think that might be real).

But this is where things get tricky and we get into the early point I made about victim shaming kind of comes up.

A law enforcement officer has no requirement to take action on a report of crime if they do not find the report viable enough to be reasonable suspicion or if the crime isn't still occurring. If you reported a rape you wouldn't be dealing with a standard beat cop anyways... it would most likely be an investigator from the sexual crimes division. They're responsibility is to collect evidence to build a case for the state to pursue charges should they have enough.

But that's not the final end of the story... if a person is assaulted they can themselves file for charges to be pressed and it wouldn't matter at that point if the state wanted to pursue the charges or not. In order to do so, she would have to name the accused and state the charge. She would have to affirm that charge under threat of perjury as with any other crime to the courts and then it really wouldn't matter if any officer of the executive branch believed her or not.

This is the biggest part that I see missing from most of these cases... people in general are lacking in their understanding of how our legal system works from the enforcement all the way up to the top. This is one of the biggest issues that I want addressed with education (from my last post). Thinking that you are powerless just because an officer didn't believe you doesn't mean that you have exhausted your ability for recourse against an attacker.

What you are describing is people failing to believe crimes reported... that's not the same as failing to believe testimony and it also does not mean that these victims are left without options for reddress.

[–]WAFC -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

YES! Destroy ALL THE LIVES with false allegations.

[+]Iguessiamaslut -27 points-26 points-25 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You seem...slow. I'm going to try to help you. I recommend you focus here: "Your comment proves that you don't even understand an ideology you espouse." #metoo

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

You can not be a feminist and for equality.

[–]kihadat 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You could not identify as a feminist and be for gender equality. You could also be a feminist and be for equality.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Don’t be an idiot. Neo-feminism has over shot the mark but old school feminism only sought equality. The anti-man sentiment isn’t the prevailing wisdom, they’re just the loudest and therefore that’s all we hear.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

yea except feminists got the vote and labour equity laws, decades ago... so.... the point is moot. What equality do women not have? where in the developed world or society are women disadvantaged because of their gender?

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Not every liberal is the same. Not every conservative. Not every feminist. There’s no point in lumping everyone together unless you’re willing to be lumped in with everyone around you as well.

It’s disingenuous to think that, despite on paper having the same rights, there aren’t environments where women are at a disadvantage. The crowd that screams “REEEEEE” hurts the overall cause but that’s what I pointed out above. I can show on paper that ethnic minorities are given equality but in practice it’s not always the case.

There’s no one size fits all for either side.

Edit: lame typo

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you can show where women aren't equal or better of then why didn't you?

[–]xtralargerooster[S] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I've read your remarks and have to say that I feel I understand your position. Having been raised by a second wave feminist mother I do get what you are saying. I think that you may be running into some struggle with other redditors who aren't as well versed on the early feminism and are conflating the issues you are addressing.

I would also suggest maybe not starting a reply by implying some one is mentally deficient.

[–]IIHotelYorba 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Still believe that bedtime story huh. Sorry but "old school feminism" was soaked with anti male bigotry, and their hateful conspiracy theories are the root of why we have the situation we have today. No feminist idea is just about changing a thing about society, but specifically counteracting this "patriarchy" bogeyman they believe in- where ALL MEN throughout history intentionally or unintentionally oppress ALL WOMEN because men are just inherently evil rape demons and stuff.

[–]rarebat 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Genuine question for you Stuart. I've yet to see a feminist start a discussion about the way 9 out of 10 people killed at work are male. If feminism is about equality, why isn't it campaigning about this issue?

[–]xtralargerooster[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He was specifically addressing early feminism... and using some rather flowery language. What he is trying to articulate is that first and second wave feminism was about attaining equality for women by addressing the inequalities that they were dealing with. In the third wave the rhetoric has changed and now they believe they are dealing with inequalities for everyone which obviously is a huge deceitful lie. But early feminism wasn't about equality for everyone which is how I'm reading his post but I'm not sure that's what he means.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Would they campaign for more dead women? I don’t get it.

The disparity in murder rates has nothing to do with equality. Positive campaigns strive for positive outcomes. You’re asking for a net negative outcome.

[–]rarebat 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you think if 9 out of 10 people who died at work were female, feminism might discuss it?

My point is that feminism only discusses inequalities where women are at a disadvantage. Where there's inequality and men are disadvantaged, it is silent.

Therefore feminism is not actually about equality. Discuss?

I'm not asking for anything by the way. I want less people to be killed at work period!

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The answer to that depends upon the person you’re asking and their agenda (if any). There are those that would probably say horrible and unkind things with regard to male victims. And there are others (and I choose to believe that it’s the overwhelming majority) that would condemn violence no matter which sex it was visited upon.

1st and 2nd wave feminism, in my opinion, were about equality. After that, as I stated above, it seems to have over shot the mark. In any battle where the goal is to establish a new paradigm, the pendulum eventually swings too far and then swings back...so on and so forth until a new equilibrium is reached. (This a a crap analogy in some ways I realize ... but I think it illustrates the point).

I would hesitate to use one umbrella to cover the entirety of a pretty diverse group.

[–]rarebat 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess the point is whether your belief in the "good" feminist majority is accurate. I certainly hope you're correct, but neither of us really have the facts.

In truth I've never seen a feminist from any era bring up the work death inequality issue. It would directly contradict their point, so why would they?

If you can find a feminist group that brings this topic up along with women's issues then you have a mature feminist group that is genuinely about equality. Can you find one for me, because I'm still looking?

Every guy in Western civilisation knows about the struggles women face. It's been all over the media for the last 40 years, forcibly shoved down our throats for the last 15 and for the forseeable future.

But how many women know or care about the inequalities men face? Of which the 90% work death ratio is just one example.

There are now rare and noble women bringing up male inequalities in the media (eg Cassie Jaye, Karen Straughan, Janice Fiamengo, Diana Davison). They certainly do not call themselves feminists.

They are shouted down, protested, laughed at and ostracised by the feminist community. They are seen as extremists.

Feminism has a very, very long journey to take until it's about equality. It could take 50 or 60 years.

[+][deleted] 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Archibald_Andino 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

White pride groups use the same tactic. "We don't hate anybody. We're just proud of the white race, that's all". No one believes them for a second either.

EDIT: She deleted her post, but this was in response to her posting the usual famous feminist "feminism simply means equality for everyone" propaganda.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In definition sure. But not in practice

[–]Muh-So-Gin-Knee 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So, I did Google it and it doesn't make any sense:

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

2 seems to absolutely contradict 1.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

[–]Bucklar -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

noun noun: feminist; plural noun: feminists

1. a person who supports feminism. 

adjective adjective: feminist

1. relating to or supporting feminism. "feminist literature" 

I dunno if this proves the point you were trying to prove.

I think it's weird people use "feminist" without some kind of qualifying term attached to it at all, whether it's to self-identify or to criticize the "other". Between Spice Girls feminism, TERFs, sex positive ones and the sex-negative ones, "mainstream" feminism and "academic" feminism, the word has basically been relativized into meaninglessness.

[–]orphancrippla 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"I'm a feminist"

I'm sorry.

[+]FruitierGnome -16 points-15 points-14 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

"I'm a feminist"

Oh no it's retarded.

[–]ThatGuyIam123 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Agrees

[–]Bucklar -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Really distinguishing yourself from the retarded there.

[–]FruitierGnome 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Not like the dog is retarted meme is an old one or anything.

[–]Bucklar -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Is that supposed to make you seem more enlightened or something?

"Someone once said something similar to the retarded thing I just said a long time before I said it" as a way to establish distance between yourself and what you just said doesn't make you seem less retarded, it just makes you seem hackneyed and cowardly too.

Or was the distance supposed to come from the way you phrased it like a sarcastic 12 year old? "I'm saying the opposite of what I mean and it's hilarious" being a rhetorical device employed only by the very well-read.

NOT.

[–]FruitierGnome 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Since when is this sub full of white knights okay with feminazis?

[–]touchet29 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

True feminism means believing in equality. Not every feminist is a "feminazi". That's prejudice and makes you look ignorant.

[–]FruitierGnome 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Oh no this one is also a retard.

[–]Bucklar -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Are deplorables invading your safe space with opinions and words you don't like being confronted with? Sorry snowflake.

"Opinion you don't like seeing" in this case being someone who agrees with you on the only topic being discussed but used a word you don't like to self-identify, or someone who was mildly critical of your very lame sense of humour(that you are clearly at this point incapable of defending). Definitely worth being compared to nazis.

Look in a mirror man(using that term loosely), you are exactly what you hate. You just vent your impotent rage at the world in a different online room and use different disparaging labels(sometimes). Right down to being unable to back up anything you say and going right to whining about the compromised sanctity of what you perceived to be your safe space.

Even if we ignore the votes, I and most of the rest of this sub will take feminist over you 10/10 times. They don't make us look like fragile morons, you do. At least some of them have the balls to punch the people they call nazis rather than be satisfied with their petty and unoriginal name calling.

PS Using comical terms of disparagement that were run into the ground in like 1994 isn't really helping you seem less hackneyed and unfunny. What's next, "equal rights means equal lefts"? So fresh.

[–]FruitierGnome 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Oh no this one is a retard too.

[–]Tossinoff 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Too far, man. Too far.

[–]FruitierGnome 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not far enough.

[–]Uplift_Yourself4 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

You are aware that most people who want sexual predators to be held accountable want both men and women to be held accountable?

[–]Muh-So-Gin-Knee 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You misundersrood my comment. My comment ment that women are now suffering under the "guilty until proven innocent" system we have now, relative to all things sexual, thanks to feminism. Feminists have successfully destroyed due process and it's now blowing up in their faces and they don't like that.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You misunderstood my comment. A female alleged sexual predator getting punished isn't blowing up in the face of femininists any more than a male alleged sexual predator getting punished.

[–]Muh-So-Gin-Knee 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok.

[–]The_Last_Mammoth 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism forced you to be happy about tit for tat?

[–]Bondofflame 32 points33 points34 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This is great. Some DNC representative was on NPR yesterday spouting some feminist Bullshit about "well, no women politicians have been accused of any sexual misconduct", therefore Implying we should elect more women. No person should lose there job over accusations but at least we have equality for this.

[–]Emily_Postal 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The same rules should apply to both men and women. Since she hasn't been elected yet, there's a huge possibility she won't get elected. This was the right move by the DNC. I'm of a the opinion however that Al Franken should have been allowed his due process and let the Ethics Committee conduct their investigation.

[–]orphancrippla 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They say that as if it isn't social suicide as a man to ever admit that a woman harassed or sexually assaulted you. I guess it's convenient to ignore the stigma against men being the victims of women when it's politically convenient.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"well, no women politicians have been accused of any sexual misconduct", therefore Implying we should elect more women.

relevant

[–]Archibald_Andino 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's bullshit completely. She got screwed over big-time. It's so strange when a woman is actually treated the same way as a man.

[–]SIRPORKSALOT 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Shoe, meet the other foot.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm a die hard republican and think this is bullshit. People in management get accused of racism and sexual harassment ALL THE TIME, and the majority of accusations are without merit. One accusation is hardly a pattern, it's inevitable that a manager will get at least one complaint in their career, and it's completely different from those with a history of settlements.

[–]JoeAsheville 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This, so much this. I'm retired now, but when I was managing a group of nearly forty women in a company that was 97% female, I was called on the carpet over a dozen times so they could investigate the false claims. On one claimant I was able to show how she forged her "documentation", and that got her fired and sent for inpatient psychological treatment...then I was encouraged to feel sorry for her and her family because she had a "problem". After several years of that I finally had enough and quit. There's only so much of that sort of harassment an individual can take.

[–]ticklefists 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Niiice...

[–]HollowHaze 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Niiice...

[–]mangababe 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Good, we want all sexual assaulters brought to Justice, not just men.

[–]Muh-So-Gin-Knee 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The men in this thread are expressing satisfaction with this result not because a woman is being held accountable but because the the "guilty until proven innocent" system we now have, relative to all things sexual, thanks to feminism just screwed over a feminist. Feminists have successfully destroyed due process, with respect to all things sexual.

[–]kihadat -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Guilty until proven innocent only applies to the legal system. In the court of public opinion, whatever people choose to believe determines the fate of public figures. It just so happens that most public figures, especially in politics, happen to be heterosexual men.

[–]trevorsandler2016 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Created a wiki for her https://everipedia.org/wiki/andrea-ramsey-1/

[–]EduBA 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Good job.

[–]trevorsandler2016 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks man

[–]787787787 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, geez. This is not good. In a rush to look clean, they've made a sloppy and stupid decision that doesn't even meet their criteria of a "person being guilty". These are the things that become tiny little barriers to actual progress.

[–]shitINtheCANDYdish 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She was running with the endorsement of Emily’s List, a liberal women’s group that has raised more than a half-million dollars to help female candidates who support abortion rights.

Because aggressive office cougars (whose eggs haven't completely dried up yet) make "mistakes" too.

[–]outlawa 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, looking at articles about this it seems that there was enough there for a settlement amount.

I know that doesn't say much as it could have simply been "get this person out of our hair" money. And there are so many variables from it did happen to the guy just sucked at his job and decided to make up a story to anything in-between.

But we're currently in a climate where if the person being accused cannot prove beyond doubt that it didn't happen / the accuser is flat out lying then it it's curtains for the accused.

This will go on for quite a while. It also seems that anything from off color remarks to flat out groping will get your name out there.

I'm not saying this is good or bad. I didn't know the woman that was involved in this until today. I've only been the Kansas long enough to catch a plane out of Kansas. And I only follow politics enough to know if someone is about the launch the missiles (so I can take the day off, why get nuked in my cube when I can go out watching my favorite movie with my family while sitting on the couch). So I have no dog in this fight. I'll just be happy when everyone gets everything out. I get a feeling when dead notable people start getting named we will be coming to the end of this.

[–]bohunk9 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I thought people didn't lie about rape/assault/harassment. Oh wait, it's just women who don't lie about that

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

geez why are all the Democrats raping and killing.

i think it is well past the time to start teach democrats to stop raping and killing

[–]Julianhyde88 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who’s going to teach them? Roy Moore and Donald Trump?

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Try harder next time.

[–]orcscorper -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Who raped and/or killed anyone in this story? Fucking nobody? All-righty, then. You are a moron. Do not reproduce. The future doesn't need your spawn.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Whoosh!

[–]jimbobtoad 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who else read, Horse?

[–]rutbah 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Funkhouser did this?!

[–]Frontfart 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Keep it in your pants

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Karma's a bitch.

[–]Vanguarde2020 -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Another pervert liberal

[–]chambertlo 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Uh-oh, the Femitards are not going to like this one.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And yet the RNC supports pedophiles... Pedophiles like all of you!

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter