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

'It's too late to start whingeing now': Feminist Germaine Greer slams #MeToo campaign by saying actresses 'spreading their legs' for Harvey Weinstein was 'tantamount to consent'

furchfur

January 22, 2018
859 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5296629/Feminist-Germaine-Greer-slams-MeToo-campaign.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 'It's too late to start whingeing now': Feminist Germaine Greer slams #MeToo campaign by saying actresses 'spreading their legs' for Harvey Weinstein was 'tantamount to consent'
Author

furchfur

Upvotes 859
Comments 205
Date January 22, 2018 9:50 AM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/7s4r05/its_too_late_to_start_whingeing_now_feminist/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/its-too-late-to-start-whingeing-now-feminist.907318
https://theredarchive.com/post/907318
Red Pill terms in post
feminist
Top posts by furchfur

UK: Innocent student wrongly accused of rape calls for anonymity for sex assault defendants until they are found guilty.

17408 upvotes
December 18, 2017
/r/MensRights

Thousands of dads are left in shock as DIY paternity tests soar. Up to 30,000 tests are being performed every year, says Alphabiolabs. In the UK about 750,000 babies are born every year. Feminists want the test to be illegal without the written consent of the mother.

4746 upvotes
January 13, 2019
/r/MensRights

Male rape survivors tell of their battle to have their voices heard after being told ‘men are the attackers, women are the victims’

4394 upvotes
April 14, 2017
/r/MensRights

16yo female 'prodigy' developer's app was actually written by a male programmer.

4210 upvotes
February 6, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

Mother-of-two, 40, falsely branded a neighbour a sex offender because he 'made too much noise building a guinea pig hutch in his garden'. It seems for many women if they do not get their way they make a false sex allegation knowing a man is not protected by the law.

3937 upvotes
March 4, 2019
/r/MensRights

Female British YouTube vlogger accuses Dublin hotel of bullying her after it refused her request to stay there for free and posted their scathing response saying she 'lacked dignity' online

3871 upvotes
January 18, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

Nearly 500 men and boys are freed from 'house of torture' Islamic boarding school where they were chained up, raped by staff and starved 'in the name of teaching them the Koran' in Nigeria. OP: We will see how much media coverage this gets.

3825 upvotes
September 27, 2019
/r/MensRights

Teenager, 18, who lied that ex-boyfriend drugged and raped her after he refused to rekindle their romance is convicted of wasting police time

3747 upvotes
May 29, 2018
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]ee4m 273 points274 points275 points 8 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

Got to hand it to her for never being afraid of controversy and saying the most contrarian things.

And behind all this Harvey whatshisname stuff is what Cory Feldman has been talking about for years.

[–][deleted] 258 points259 points260 points 8 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

No one cared because he was a boy

[–]ee4m 92 points93 points94 points 8 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

And or more powerful people are being protected behind a smoke screen.

Like how gender wage gap protects politicians and corporations from real wealth inequality discussion.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Does anyone have access to a payroll document at a government or corporate level that clearly shows the same job with male and female employees making different amount of money? Just watched the movie the Post. Surely someone from some business or office can leak this information?

[–]Mode1961 29 points30 points31 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Having a few friends in the Federal Government here in Canada they all tell me the position is what pays the salary (in some cases increases with years of experience) not the person.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. And I’ve never seen any proof contradicting that fact. I’ve seen lots of bs about the wage gap given all kinds of “variables”, but no proof.

[–]DownvotedByShitters 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But women should be believed without proof. /s

[+]applythrottle1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Jus wanted to chime in here and say that Mo’Nique called for a boycott of Netflix because she was paid $500,000 for her comedy special while Dave Chappelle was paid $20,000,000. That is a very lonely road to walk when she tries to compare her comedy chops to Dave Chappelle’s.

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

That’s the point though right? Equal pay for equal work. Who is mo’nique compared to chapelle? What percentage of people watched mo’nique vs chapelle? If Oprah decided to pitch netflix an exclusive special how much do you think they would offer her?

[+]applythrottle1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

That’s exactly the point. In this case, it had nothing to do with education level or even experience really. Sure, Chappelle has been doing comedy for decades but it’s how he honed his craft early on and figured out what works that has elevated him to, in my opinion, the absolute #1 position. Look at it this way. He took almost 13 years off from doing any comedy and he came back and was still paid $20,000,000.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

For sure. The entertainment industry and sports are different. The money is offered as an incentive for the artist/athlete after a careful analysis on the return from viewers/attendance.

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

I don’t think it is just entertainment and sports. An artisan cabinet maker makes a ton more for every hour of work than your run if the mill carpenter.

Salary is almost always a matter of the value of what you bring in or produce through your labor than about the time you spend on that labor

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

Generally speaking you get paid for what you can make the company. Certain professions you do little work but you make your company a ton.

Chappelle makes them a ton more so they pay him a ton more.

[–]j4y_3l3cT -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I would agree with this but, they paid Amy Schumer $11 mil and she's nowhere near as funny as MoNique let's be honest I mean stealing jokes and shit how do you justify that?

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

Lol after that train wreck special I don’t think that will be a problem again.

[–]splodgenessabounds 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

real wealth inequality discussion

Rescinding the loophole that grants corporations similar rights to an individual citizen would be a useful start. Not that I'm holding my breath ...

[–]ee4m 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, it would stop the "elephant dancing with the chickens " effect.

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

the "elephant dancing with the chickens " effect

the 'what' now?

 

Ceterum, in Net liber nam omnis.

[–]ee4m 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If capitalism is unregulated, and corporations have the same rights as humans, the corporation gets to dance among humans, or an elephant dancing among the chickens.

Using economic theory; capital argues for a weak state. This line is one that could take us back to the "night watchman" state of the last century, a "laissez-faire" situation that Charles Dickens described as: "Every man for himself, as the elephant said when he danced among the chickens". http://www.angelfire.com/ma/rank/tedw.html

[+]wrekd1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Not far enough. Rescind all Corporate Charters and make them private companies open for full liquidation of assets.

[–]ulthrant82 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I'd be totally ok with corporations staying exactly the way they are as long as the people IN them were made accountable to their own decisions/actions.

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

Gonna have to fix up the clusterfuck that is liability law first though.

[+]wrekd1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

But I think that allows for the few bad apples defense and/or the creation of scapegoats. Meanwhile, the company itself gets to keep on chugging along. What businesses need is dire consequences.

[–]ulthrant82 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure if this imaginary scenario were to be implemented we could come up with an effective system. In saying that you're not wrong. If companies were effectively punished for their misdeeds they wouldn't behave the same, for sure.

[–]superhobo666 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm sure if this immaginary scenario

there isnt anything immaginary about it, companies throw low level employees under the bus for doing things executives/managees decided to do.

[–]ulthrant82 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

People IN them were made accountable to their own decisions/actions.

This is the imaginary scenario I'm refering to.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

real wealth inequality discussion.

You mean how the majority of Americans are in the world's 1%?

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

You mean how the majority of Americans are in the world's 1%?

What? I try to understand but there seems to be no relation to any facts I know???

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

If you make 32,400 or more, you're in the world's 1%.

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

The wider point is why politicians distract us with the gender wage gap, and capitalist interests started spreading modern feminism in the first place.

Yeah, american listed corporations are drawing oil and other resources out of a lot of poor countries, which are tied up in free market agreements that prohibit or limit government spending on developing the economy in a way that would limit poverty, and the benefits that are there go to the 1%.

And those countries are already ravaged by earlier forms of capitalism, and or economic sabotage or war to force open their markets.

The real problem is the 1% in each of the respective countries, particularly the .01% in the US, the imf and wb pushing free market fixes on countries that dont work and the capitalist system in general.

Free market ideology is cancer, externalities like humanity and empathy are non existent in it. Its domination by the untrarich and profit before all other concerns dressed up as maths.

Karl Marx said the working class should never be disarmed, to defend themselves from would be masters, the founding fathers of america believed this too.

But libertarian was appropriated and now it specifically stigmatizes the people pointing a gun or using force against the masters, who are happy to use force when they are breaking a market open so the resources can be stolen out of that country.

Its a neutered, reversal of what libertarian means.

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

Yeah, american listed corporations are drawing oil and other resources out of a lot of poor countries, which are tied up in free market agreements that prohibit or limit government spending on developing the economy in a way that would limit poverty, and the benefits that are there go to the 1%.

Government spending doesn't limit poverty.

Poverty spending doesn't reduce poverty. It makes poverty more comfortable. It's the same as antipsychotics for schizophrenia: it doesn't cure or eliminate the problem, it simply makes it more comfortable.

And those countries are already ravaged by earlier forms of capitalism, and or economic sabotage or war to force open their markets.

Before nascent capitalism conquering was the way to become prosperous.

They weren't ravaged by capitalism, at least not uniquely so.

The real problem is the 1% in each of the respective countries, particularly the .01% in the US, the imf and wb pushing free market fixes on countries that dont work and the capitalist system in general.

All the markets in those countries become less free.

Free market ideology is cancer, externalities like humanity and empathy are non existent in it.

More accurately they do arbitrarily impose them. There's nothing that precludes them either.

Its domination by the untrarich and profit before all other concerns dressed up as maths.

Ignoring what that profit represents.

Karl Marx said the working class should never be disarmed, to defend themselves from would be masters, the founding fathers of america believed this too.

Karl Marx also believed in math.

But libertarian was appropriated and now it specifically stigmatizes the people pointing a gun or using force against the masters, who are happy to use force when they are breaking a market open so the resources can be stolen out of that country.

They make a distinction between aggressive and defensive violence, one which you refuse to acknowledge in this criticism.

Its a neutered, reversal of what libertarian means.

Well your argument certainly is.

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Of course government spending reduces poverty, more middle class jobs, less poverty, more middle class jobs, more business opertuinity for working class people.

More education, more opertuinity, more health care fitter for work.

Free market magic, doesn't work, and other countries are figuring that out.

https://www.worldcrunch.com/business-finance/portugal39s-economic-miracle-makes-a-case-against-austerity

Right libertarians arent allowed to use force to defend themselves against corporate masters.

Right libertarians want the means to use force against corporate masters removed.

You can be put back into 1800s free market, or latin american free market conditions ... but using force against the masters would be wrong.

The opposite of what the founding fathers wanted.

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

Of course government spending reduces poverty, more middle class jobs, less poverty, more middle class jobs, more business opertuinity for working class people.

Nope. You're just playing accountant.

More education, more opertuinity, more health care fitter for work.

Not regardless of the manner or scope.

Free market magic, doesn't work, and other countries are figuring that out.

Nope. Governments are figuring out to tease statistics playing accountant to make it appear they've accomplished something without actually doing so.

Right libertarians arent allowed to use force to defend themselves against corporate masters.

Right libertarians want the means to use force against corporate masters removed.

No they want to means to use aggressive force by anyone removed.

The opposite of what the founding fathers wanted.

Citation needed.

You're going to need more than playing accountant. Try harder.

[–]ee4m -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Nope. You're just playing accountant.

You don't need to be an accountant to know that. Build infrastructure, build schools, hospitals, employ staff, employ civil servants creates more middle and working class jobs. More middle class jobs, more jobs for working class people in construction and electrical work and so on.

Stop all that activity and you have an african, or latin america free market basket case with growth that doesn't improve until they swing to the left.

Not regardless of the manner or scope.

If you have a lower class and they don't have access to good food, education, education and jobs they will be less productive, they will be destructive and their iq's will drop.

No they want to means to use aggressive force by anyone removed.

Thats what the followers believe. Markets are freed by force. If people try to take the oil back to ease the poverty, they will use force against the people.

The socialist state in india out preforms the capitalist ones by near every measure, lots of countries are going to ignore the IMF and follow Portugal, they saved their economy with a swing to the left, the neoliberal era is on its last legs.

https://www.worldcrunch.com/business-finance/portugal39s-economic-miracle-makes-a-case-against-austerity

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

You don't need to be an accountant to know that. Build infrastructure, build schools, hospitals, employ staff, employ civil servants creates more middle and working class jobs.

You're confused. Public sector jobs are not productive, because they're employed by funds acquired by force. The subjective theory of value means you can't know something is valuable unless the exchange is voluntary.

You rely on playing accountant and looking at dollars regardless of the context of the valuations.

Stop all that activity and you have an african, or latin america free market basket case with growth that doesn't improve until they swing to the left.

You're engaging in the classic progressive fallacy of inferring that if the government doesn't do X, it doesn't get done.

If you have a lower class and they don't have access to good food, education, education and jobs they will be less productive, they will be destructive and their iq's will drop.

You assume this state of being is immutable without government.

You refuse or are unable to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions.

Thats what the followers believe. Markets are freed by force. If people try to take the oil back to ease the poverty, they will use force against the people.

No, markets are freed by defining and defending private property.

Theft doesn't free markets.

The socialist state in india out preforms the capitalist ones by near every measure

Lolno.

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

And now nobody cares because he says shit like "I want to help the victims, but only if I get 10 million dollars to make a movie about how I'm helping."

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

To be fair, the women will get big checks.

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

Yep. He also arguably had the most damaging past out of any of the victims who have come out in the last few months. He was molested multiple times by a pedophile ring, yet people seem to care way more about the girls who had a sexually awkward time with Aziz and Louie.

And yes jerking off in front of people is more than just awkward, but at least these women never even remotely went through any physical abuse, and they weren't even close to being the age Corey was when that shit happened to him.

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

"I tried to warn you, ladies, that all men are rapists. But did you listen to me, crazy ol' Granny Greer?? Noooo-ooooooooo-oooo!! I bet you're sorry now, huh, you dumb suckers of patriarchy-cock??"

[–]juanml82 132 points133 points134 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Just your reminder that Weinstein was accused of rape, as in, women said "no" and he still proceded to grope them, eat them out, or other stuff covered under NDAs

[–]jb_trp 64 points65 points66 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Right? Did you hear the recording of him in the hotel pressuring the woman to go back to his hotel room? Not okay.

I hope this sub doesn't change to defending people who are guilty of actual wrongdoing simply because they're men. Sometimes I have that concern because I've seen similar things in feminist circles. In the twox sub some time back, I saw a post where a female teacher accused of molesting a teenage boy was cleared of charges (the boy lied). The post got a few hundred upvotes. And while I'm glad an innocent person isn't thrown in jail (well, lets be honest... She'd likely only get a slap on the wrist, even if she was guilty), I was amazed at that sub defending a person accused of rape... But I have to believe it was only because she was female. If the genders were reversed, it probably would have garnered a few hundred downvotes.

My point is this: We can't build justice for one gender with injustices towards the other gender. We ought not defend a person simply because of their gender, and in doing so often ignoring due process or clear evidence, or else we're no better than the die-hard third wave feminists defending "Jackie" at UVA, etc.

Edit: grammar/spelling

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

Reminder folks.... "accused"

As in.. hasn't been prosecuted, faced a jury, or been found guilty.

[–]juanml82 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You do know he confessed he groped one actress who was recording him with a hidden mic as part of a police investigation, right?

[+]Bluelabel -9 points-8 points-7 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Has he been charged and found guilty?

So that's one out of how many?

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

Doesn’t really matter at this point. One too many either way.

[–]Yanto5 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup. If even one of these claims is true he is a complete and utter bastard.

It's unlikely a dozen people accuse you of sexual assault if you are completely innocent of it. even less likely if one of them has proof and you confess it.

[+]Chuck-U-Farley11 points 8 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

How does one "eat them out" without their consent? Unless he force-ably removed their clothing and was physically restraining them, they can just get up and leave.

[–]juanml82 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Pull one arm over her chest to keep her in place and use the remaining arm and your head to make sure her legs remain open.

Disclaimer: not legal advice

[+]Chuck-U-Farley11 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

To do so would require a large amount of force/violence/battery.

to my knowledge (and please correct me if I am wrong), that is not what is being claimed; what it being claimed is use of promises/ career pressure/threats to "coerce" sexual favors.

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

I hope someone holds you down and coerces you.

Edit: Guy said something along the lines of "How do you orally rape someone? Doesn't seem possible." Then deleted his account when we called it out because he's a fucking pussy.

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

Threats

[–]fengpi 89 points90 points91 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Greer says the stuff that all the other feminists are way too image-conscious and passive-aggressive to say.

[–]splodgenessabounds 40 points41 points42 points 8 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

Up to a point, yes - compared to the pearl-clutching madams on the fainting couch of contemporary Feminism, she's a heavyweight champion.

OTOH she's still saying things like

'I have seen the police working up a rape case trying desperately hard to build it up so it will stand up in court - and wasting their time,' she explained.'

'The burden of proof [for rape] is too high and that's because the tariff is too onerous. Rape is a daily crime, it's not spectacular.

*edit formatting

[–]fengpi 50 points51 points52 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I've always found it curious that, when it comes to rape, feminists want to have it every which way: it's the worst and most injurious crime in the universe, but humdrum and mundane enough to include unenthusiastic consensual sex after a mouthful of bourbon when a flicker of momentary doubt was present but the victim lacked the wherewithal to actually say or do anything to evince the kind of self-protective instincts you'd expect from a common garden slug.

I don't know about you, but if I was about to be subjected to the worst kind of assault imaginable, I might be able to mutter something like "knock it off, bub" instead of just lying there like a vegetable. I guess I've just got a lot of poisonous imaginings in my head.

[–]splodgenessabounds 28 points29 points30 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And in that sense, Feminism does no woman - least of all genuine victims of serious sexual assault - any favours at all.

One of #MeToo's essential faults is not that it blames men: it's that its loudest and most prominent voices refuse to recognise the meaningful distinction between a gauche manouevre and serious personal assault. It is no coincidence that its most strident and effective critics are women - I just wish more women would step up and criticise the much more pernicious and much more serious problems in the way in which rape cases are treated in our criminal justice system.

[–]Grasshopper21 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

As someone who works in crim law. No. just no. You know what I'd be ok with rape cases being handled the way feminists want, if the punishment was a fine like a parking ticket. You can have your day in court, he can speedily admit to being a rapist, pay $500 and everyone can go home.

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

"I'd rape you but I don't have 500 bucks."

It's obviously a joke but somehow I think that'd be way more of a deterrent to most than it sounds...oddly enough.

[–]splodgenessabounds 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Somewhere someone recently (I'll have to dig back through my browsing history to find out who/ where) explained to me something I hadn't clearly understood before: I'll do my best to recount in my own words what I remember (which I acknowledge may be faulty); here goes...

 -- 

The person showed that there are two core principles in establishing a crime - actus reus and mens rea - and that these are well established in criminal law and the judiciary. The second part (mens rea) is (roughly translated) the "guilty mind" or, as it used to be called in the UK, "malice aforethought". Once the objective act of the crime (actus reus) had been shown, the rest of the hearing was about establishing whether the act was premeditated/ intended or was simply the final outcome of one or more unintended consequences. So far, so understood.

The other part - the objective fact of the offence, actus reus - is, in most crimes, a matter of establishing what happened and whodunnit. In many senses, this is the part that seems a (relatively) straightforward process of collecting evidence - interviews, photo/ video/ ID parade/ fingerprints/ bloody knife/ inexplicable presence of £2million in used banknotes under the bed.... clearly show it was this muppet in the dock. Same for unlawful killing, assault, fraud and so on. In the case of rape, however, things get much less clear-cut when showing actus reus.

Yes, there are obvious cases where some nutter has jumped on an unsuspecting victim, dragged them away and forcibly (or otherwise against their will) had intercourse. Such cut-and-dry cases are (as far I understand it), however, much less common than what goes on after a hook-up or a date and so on - IOW all those circumstances where the alleged offender isn't a nutter or a serial madman. In these trickier cases, yes, there is often evidence of the accused's presence - video, witnesses, fingerprints, hairs in the flat, even his semen on the sheets or on/ in her. The accused may even state that he (it's usually "he" - yes, I know...) had sex with her.

Unlike killing someone or blagging the jewellers, however, in the case of alleged rape it cannot be established that the sex act was a crime merely on the basis of various pieces of evidence, nor even that the accused had sex with the plaintiff.

 --- 

That's what I remember of what (whoever it was) said/ wrote. And rough as it is, I understood that while actus reus is an essential component of establishing whether a crime has been committed or not, establishing the criminal act is much more fraught in the case of rape allegations.

What baffles me then is why - despite innumerable accommodations in the criminal justice system in hearing rape cases - Feminists SJWs and the rest still pursue (and moan and beseech) making an already difficult process worse by making it some sort of slam-dunk procedure. Yes, criminal trials for serious offences are often hard, long and complex, and so they should be - there are big stakes in play.

I'm rambling, I'll shut up now.

[–]fengpi 14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

What baffles me then is why - despite innumerable accommodations in the criminal justice system in hearing rape cases - Feminists SJWs and the rest still pursue (and moan and beseech) making an already difficult process worse by making it some sort of slam-dunk procedure.

Because they want the burden of proof to be reversed. And rape would be the only crime that they would want that to be true for. But not for women accused of raping kiddies; they deserve an ironclad presumption of innocence and a totally fair trial of course.

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

Not only that, but they want to extend the "rape shield" laws to prohibit introduction of any evidence that may exonerate the defendant--particularly circumstantial evidence of consent: text messages, IMS, social media posts etc. etc. Because, for them, all that matters is the woman's subjective state of mind "at the moment" whether communicated or not--whether contrary to prior objective evidence of consent; sometimes, even the state of mind at the time of the act is irrelevant. All they care about is how they "feel" when they file the complaint.

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

all that matters is the woman's subjective state of mind "at the moment" whether communicated or not--whether contrary to prior objective evidence of consent; sometimes, even the state of mind at the time of the act is irrelevant. All they care about is how they "feel" when they file the complaint.

What if, after filing the complaint, they feel that they were wrong in doing so? "NO TAKEBACKS!!!1!!!" I assume. Women never lie in rape accusations but they do lie when they recant an accusation!!1!

[–]Fermit 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

they want to extend the "rape shield" laws to prohibit introduction of any evidence that may exonerate the defendant

Do you have evidence of this?

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Going on in Canada right now.

See also recently (shot down thankfully) proposed amendments to model penal code that would have defined sexual assault as occurring if you hod your date's hand without her express permission or if you "should have known" she didn't consent (despite actual consent) from "non verbal cues."

[–]Fermit 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

proposed amendments to model penal code that would have defined sexual assault as occurring if you hod your date's hand without her express permission or if you "should have known" she didn't consent (despite actual consent) from "non verbal cues."

This is so absurd it's actually comical. What a time to be alive.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course no one admits they want to "to prohibit introduction of any evidence that may exonerate the defendant"; but that is the practical effect of all of the proposed reforms: Lowering burden of proof; redefining consent; exclusionary evidence rules of social media and pre or post-hoc indicia of consent.

[–]superhobo666 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

there is a motion going through Canadian Parliament right now that would do exactly this if it passes as a motion and moves on to the senate.

femjnists keep squeeling "but its just a motion, its not acrually a real law!"

while forfetting that that is how you make a law in Canada, you pass it as a motion and it moves on to the nexf branch to be edited and codified.

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

"but its just a motion, its not acrually a real law!"

They can't possibly be that stupid. Maybe a lot of them are halfway to being that stupid but, come on now.

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

This is the "just the tip" of SJW extremists. They are raping Canadian law.

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

Violent crime isn't the sort of crime you get fined for.

[–]sakura_sakura 39 points40 points41 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

She's still a nutjob, but made to look vaguely sane by modern feminism.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's when you see how much the perspective is important, and how these new movements changed the narrative so much that even old loonies are perceived as sane now.

[–]splodgenessabounds 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

made to look vaguely sane by modern feminism

And given it's Greer, that's no mean achievement.

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

Doubt it, unless you're talking about early wave feminists

[–]Tedesche 34 points35 points36 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Oof. Coming from Greer herself. Just goes to show how departed millennial feminists are from their older sisters. Music to my ears. Would love to hear the standard Reddit feminist dismiss Greer as “not a real feminist” over this.

EDIT: One question for her though—why’d she wait this long? Kinda makes me wonder if she was waiting for it to be ‘safe’ after the bubble burst....

[–]BulbasaurusThe7th 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh yes, I have had feminist girlies dismiss her when I brought up the weird child sexualising book she released.
They also said nobody from Dworkin to Margaret Sanger were actual real feminists, because Emma Watson is totes realsier.

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

because Emma Watson is totes realsier.

LOL.

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

Germain Greer might be firmly in the "patriarchy" man-hater camp, but her attitudes on sex have always been very un-feminist. You could probably say married women should be banned from the workplace and be seen as more feminist than her, based on that alone. She came out in the past and basically said that society's view of how bad rape is has been massively overblown.

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

Would love to hear the standard Reddit feminist dismiss Greer as “not a real feminist” over this.

They've already long since dismissed her as a "TERF" and no-platformed her over some off-colour remarks she made about transwomen. So she's already "not a real feminist" as far most of the current crop is concerned.

[–]Tedesche 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Germaine Greer’s a TERF? HA! I had no idea. That’s fuckin’ rich. Ah, well, that counts as original sin among feminists these days, so yeah, I guess this will come as no surprise.

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

Yeah, there was this whole bit she did where she went on a bit of a rant a couple of years back about how transwomen were just men playing pretend (with implications of nefarious motives) and that even post-surgery, they would never know what it was really like to have a "big, hairy, smelly vagina" amongst other things. If that wasn't strange enough, the reaction included a bunch of transwomen jumping on social media to tell the world just how big and smelly their vaginas were. She then had a bunch of her talks at universities cancelled because she made people feel "unsafe". Surreal stuff.

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

LOL, disavowed by the sisterhood overnight. So it goes. All religions fracture, I suppose.

[–]MWcrazyhorse 16 points17 points18 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Agreed and quite brave to go against the mob. But Harvey is a bad example. We have him on tape. He is being more than just pushy.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Well, even if he is offering an explicit quid pro quo....that is still not assault.

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

Not to mention it cuts both ways. Offering sex to a superior for an employment related benefit is sexual harassment in the exact same way that soliciting sex from a subordinate is.

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

Yeah sure, but there are many reports of assault. Harvey, the powerful gate keeper in Hollywood, who abuses his power for his degeneracy is the archetype of the topic. I despise gate keepers. I despise those who abuse their power. This is not just about sexuality. Hollywood is at war with everything I believe in. It was not always this way but it has been corrupted. Imho it is the modern Gomorha. It needs cleansing. They know this and have since began to co-opt this outcry. They always infiltrate and co-opt. Now they attack men. I am on the side of men and women and honor. Because of this I oppose with all my heart Harvey and Meryl Streep and Oprah and McGowan. Abusers and enablers and accusers. The swamp will be drained. The heresy will be cleansed. Do you get where I am coming from?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Do you get where I am coming from?

I too, saw Taxi Driver and related.

[–]MWcrazyhorse 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What's the reference? The vigilante taxi driver? What quote?

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

Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.

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

And what is his reference? A rain of fire? Soddom and Gomorrha? Well. I think we don't need God for this one, but the scum will be washed out of Hollywood and out of every hall of power very shortly. The 2nd American revolution has begun. The shot heard around the world. Although some are deaf.

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

It's incredibly amusing to see these feminist icons like Germain Greer and Margaret Attwood, who young female celebrities constantly quote and hold up as their heros, then turn on them and call their actions bullshit. It seems to leave the young female celebrities absolutely dumbfounded (because they don't have any genuine thoughts of their own, just whatever is popular). It's just Gloria Steinem remaining who seems to still care tremendously about being liked by these young women.

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

I would love to see a civil war within feminism. Wave two versus the millennials. Would pay for frontrow seats to see that conflict.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I’ve been agreeing a lot with Greer lately. This worries me.

[–]splodgenessabounds 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

She's of a similar age and mind-frame as Camille Paglia - both are older, both speak bluntly and both (AFAICT) are regularly attacked by contemporary Feminists who appear to be victim fetishists.

I agree, it's good to hear them puncture the balloon that is modern Feminism, but they are both still Feminists and they both still campaign for the movement.

[–]beardedheathen 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

but that are both still Feminist

Who cares what they are? If someone makes a valid point they make a valid point regardless of anything else. Identity politics has no place in rational discussion. If you discount someone solely because they agree with someone you dislike you are wrong. End of story.

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

If you discount someone solely because they agree with someone you dislike you are wrong. End of story.

Far from discounting her, I agreed with some of what Greer said.

That does not - and should not - mean I ignore other statements and beliefs she expresses.

The ability to discriminate matters.

[–]Electroverted 20 points21 points22 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I dated an actress last year, and asked her about MeToo. She rolled her eyes at me and said, "Please, if I had a story, my career would be in such a better place right now."

[–]bobert3469 63 points64 points65 points 8 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

These bitches kill me. "Oh boo hoo, I got a million dollar career in exchange for sexual favors! He must have raaaped me !". Bitch that's not rape, it's prostitution!

[–]rawbface 53 points54 points55 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Reminds me of the joke where the judge asks the prostitute when she first knew she was raped, and she replied "when his check bounced".

I first heard this joke at an offsite business meeting. By a woman.

[–]callsyourcatugly 18 points19 points20 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Is that rape, or shoplifting?

[–]AcidJiles 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's breach of contract so a civil matter.

[–]bobert3469 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Omg I just spit my coffee out! That is friggin' hysterical(and,unfortunately, frighteningly true).

[–]juanml82 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

True story: a scumbag in the outskirts of Buenos Aires contacted unemployed single mothers offering them his influence in getting a job at a supermarket in exchange for sex. He'd meet them, get their resume, presumably leave it at the supermarket like anyone can do because he had no contacts whatsoever, and had sex with them.

Some of them, eventually realizing the scam, accused him of rape. The court decided it wasn't rape.

Had they filed a civil lawsuit for scam, they might have been successful.

[–]BulbasaurusThe7th 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I always like these little victims who are perfectly okay with selling themselves, but are still a bit insulted someone was just like "Okay, done, I can pay for that".
They say they are not that kinda, but they are totally that kinda, with a higher ticket.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points25 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Like the old Winston Churchill quote:

Q: Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds

A: A million pounds; well, ok, but, we'd have to discuss terms

Q: Would you sleep with me for 10 pounds

A: Why, what kind of woman do you think I am?!!

Q: Madam, we have already established that; we are just negotiating the price.

[+]klockee1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Bitches? Seriously? That's really helping your case.

[–]bobert3469 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Well considering the only thing that comes out of these womens mouths are how men are all rapists and abusers, I think it's only fair. Would you prefer misandrist, wanna be victims, that can destroy a man's life with just a statement. That after years of a multi million dollar career can get sympathy for something that they have absolutely no proof of? Where was the sympathy for Corey Feldman and Corey Haim when they came forward YEARS ago and wound up costing Haim his life? Okay, won't use bitches. Hmm what would be a more appropriate term? Oh I know...hookers!

[+]klockee1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Holy fucking shit dude you need therapy. You have some serious issues regarding women, who, by the way, are just people.

[–]bobert3469 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And you're a delusional white knight that is going to have his balls handed to him later. Actually I love women but because of my experiences (reformed Capt. Save A Ho here), I'm not stupid enough to trust any of them 100%. I went MGTOW 6 years ago and never looked back after I was punched multiple times by my exgf and I wound up spending a week in jail. I didn't even touch her. When I told the cops what happend and tried to file charges I was laughed at and told "What,you can't control your woman?". If it wasn't for her bragging to the wrong people,I would've done 2 years for DV. Keep white knighting dude. I'll put a couple of bucks in your jail commissary for you.

[+]klockee1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

lol, being a decent human being is not white knighting you actual fucking lunatic

[–]bobert3469 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'll tell you what...when your serving time for something you didn't do or some woman takes your house,kids,and everything else you own,remember this conversation. I white knighted for years. Women in my mind could do no wrong. Until everything was taken from me. My ex took off with my kids and haven't seen them in years. I have no idea where they are. Mind you that's after she got the house I solely paid for and took off with the money.I've been robbed,cheated on,lied too,taken advantage of. I never said to abuse anybody. I don't want to see anybody hurt. But if I think that woman can and do use their sexuality to serve their agendas,that's not being a lunatic,that's being self protective.Now I could use terms like "beta" and "cuck" but that doesn't accomplish anything. I sincerely hope you never have to deal with what I have. Just protect yourself dude. I hope it works for you,I really do.

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

And this seems to apply for the majority of the recent public metoo complaints.

[–]Moonchopper 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

Or they were basically completely shut out of the industry? When the only thing that determines whether or not you can get into the industry as a woman is having sex with a greasy old perv, do you think that's really okay? Shouldn't it be based on merit instead of whether or not you're willing to sell your body?

And I'm willing to bet it didn't stop there, either. "Keep sucking my cock from time to time or your career in Hollywood is over".

But no - it's "men vs. Women" I this sub because all them women's are out to get us and abuse their sexuality to get what they want!

[–]Mode1961 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I sure hope straw isn't very expensive where you live because that is one hell of a strawman you built there.

[–]Moonchopper -5 points-4 points-3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yea, I guess I should really just be okay with blaming the women, and not the creepy old fuck taking advantage of them. After all, IM not the one that had to suck some dick, right?

[–]Mode1961 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That flew right over your head didn't it.

[–]bobert3469 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

And how many of these women said "Give me a career or I'll tell everyone you raped me."? Or "I'll do ANYTHING if you put me in this movie (wink wink).". It goes both ways. Women use their sexuality as a bargaining chip ALL the time and then want to play the innocent,victimized, virginal Marysue when they hit the wall at 35.

[–]Moonchopper -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Probably a hell of a lot fewer than YOU think, since you apparently seem to have a bone to pick with Hollywood actresses.

You make it sound like every woman uses her sexuality all the time to get what they want.

[–]bobert3469 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I see it almost every day and I've experienced it myself. Actually I don't have a problem with any actress because it doesn't affect me personally. What I do have a problem with is women playing the victim card when most( not all. I'm not generalizing.) are using their sexuality as a bargaining chip and weapon. They want equality but also want to avoid responsiblity for the consequences of their actions. Make up your minds- are you strong independent women who don't need men or are you a retarded child that thrives on victimhood and should have no consequences? They can't have it both ways.

[–]Moonchopper 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Let me guess, by "seeing it every day", you're talking about on Reddit or otherwise on the internet? I think you're suffering from confirmation bias, my friend.

A vast majority of the women I personally know have not ever nor would ever use their sexuality to advance themselves. Statistically speaking, I'd wager that it doesn't happen as frequently as you seem to think.

AND EVEN SO, how does other women behaving in a morally questionable way apply to the Weinstein problem? Are you saying it partially excuses his behavior, or are you simply answering his behavior with "yea, well, women aren't so innocent!" ?

[–]bobert3469 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it? When I say my life, I mean actual experiences that either I or people I know have actually dealt with, not any kind of "life" online. As far as the Weinstein subject, I've known he was a POS since his days at Harvey and Corkey Productions. I grew up in Buffalo and heard all the stories back in the 80s. My point was that women DO manipulate and take advantage, using sex and false accusations. I never said all women. That would make me as bad as the thunder twats that think every guy wants to rape them. If you think EVERY woman in your life is a great person, fine. But in my experience, at least a few have done something like this. You seriously don't think some woman is going to come out and say "Oh yeah,I slept with my boss to get a raise and then accused him of sexually harassing or assaulting me to further my career and to garner sympathy.". In this country, it's innocent till PROVEN guilty. Just because some woman says it 20 years later, don't make it true. If you seriously believe that, you're setting yourself up for some serious shit down the road.

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

So your stance on the whole Weinstein thing is "yea, guys a piece of shit, but not ALL the allegations have merit"?

[–]bobert3469 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No I'm saying that a) yes he's a piece of shit b)even though he's a piece of shit, this country is still innocent until proven guilty c)it is extremely suspect when women get a multi million dollar career and YEARS later want to bitch about how they got it d) If they weren't a complicit partner,isn't it common sense to scream to the law and the media WHEN it happend? I would think the publicity and sympathy they would have gotten then(you know, when they might've had that pesky thing called evidence) would've still gotten them their career and e) wouldn't wanting to see him in jail right then and there (not 20 years later) be a higher priority than being an actress? If someone did that too me, I'd want his balls on a plate even if it meant never getting to be an actress. There are a ton of careers out there. I wanted to be a fighter pilot but when I knew that wasn't going to happen (bad eyes and too tall), I moved on to other things. I would think justice would trump anything if you weren't even marginally ok with it. It's a concept called "fruit of the poison tree". If you profit from something,you can't complain how it came about(I.E. a drug dealer sells you drugs,you take drugs and get high,you get arrested 10 years later,you can't bitch that it's the drug dealers fault.).

[+]LeaChan1 points 8 years ago* [recovered] (20 children) | Copy Link

This is what none of these men seem to get. When a man with a lot of power approaches you and says "Suck my dick and I'll give you a great career but if not no career for you and I'll tell all my friends you're worthless so you won't find work anywhere else." It puts you in a really awful situation that no woman should EVER have to face, If they chose being able to feed their families with the expense of getting sexually assaulted that doesn't make the assault any less valid.

[–]LordCharidarn 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes, because the only way to ‘feed your family’ is to become a film star.

And here I was, thinking the American Dream was working in the coal mines.

[–]Moonchopper -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

God forbid people have a preference for their career path.

What's wrong with calling out these shitheads that abuse their place of power to get sexual favors in exchange for film roles?

[–]LordCharidarn 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

How is it an ‘abuse’ if both sides consent to, then fulfill, an agreement? Are you declaring that the person in the weaker position of power should not be allowed to bargain their sexual desirability to better their position? Should we enact laws to punish those that try to sexually entice people out of money or gifts or food?

Sure, call out the shitheads who force the unwilling into sexual acts, but if a woman consents to an offer of ‘sex for advancement’ who the hell are you to tell her she can’t agree?

If producers are making decisions about who should act in their movies by who is willing to fuck them, then they are either not going to be successful long, or the role being discussed does not need much actual talent to fill it. So why not use ‘willingness to engage in sex’ as a currency to weed out thousands of otherwise adequate actors?

[–]Moonchopper 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How is it an ‘abuse’ if both sides consent to, then fulfill, an agreement?

Do you think that these were all simple one-time transactions completely devoid of any other context? Hollywood isn't the Red Light district where actors or actresses simply stroll by windows of TV producers and pick whose dick they're going to suck to get a part.

Of course, if it is as simple as 'Suck my dick and you'll get the part' with absolutely no coercion, then I really can't qualify that as abuse. But do you truly believe that's the case with Harvey Weinstein? Do you believe that Harvey Weinstein put an offer on the table, and women were free to decline it with no repercussions?

It's not the transaction I have a problem with - it's the larger context of coercion and dangling a carrot in front of someone that's desperate to advance their chosen career path.

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

Barring being forced to put the carrot in their mouth, they can always choose to ignore the carrot. Otherwise we have to assume that as capable adults, these women figured sexual acts in exchange for a job was an acceptable deal. Otherwise it is us (society) that is taking away their right to consent. They can feel free to regret the decision later, but unless we are going to agree as a society that women need chaperones to decide things for them, we have to have people accept responsibility for their consentual actions.

That’s the important thing: choice. If you take away someone’s ability to choose, that’s where the line should be.

It’s rare in the world that you never run into a situation where all your options are shitty. Like I said earlier, it’s a open secret that sexual interactions are a common part of Hollywood. This may not be ideal to most, but you’d have to be unbelievably niave to have your dream job be ‘Movie Star’ and to have never thought “would I have sex to advance my career?’

It seems from the Weinstein stories that he violated consent; that’s where it becomes a crime. However, a quick Google search seems to show that he has not been charged with any crimes. If we are to believe his many accusers, it was obvious that he used his authority to force sexual acts when his offers were rejected.

So, with that one example, if the accusers are to be believed, then Weinstein violated consent, which is the line you do not cross. Offering or accepting sexual favors between capable, consenting adults should not be an issue.

After all, we are all consenting adults, right?

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

I feel like the nuance you're missing here is the whole Implication bit from IASIP. If nothing else, this is evidenced (albeit circumstantially) by the massive amount of allegations leveled at Weinstein, and the fact that they have been hush-hush for so long -- so many people were aware of it, but no one wanted to risk their career over it in an industry that relies so heavily upon social connections.

I won't pretend to know whether or not all of these allegations or true, but it seems at this point that it's a given that Weinstein has approached many many women in a sexual manner.

it’s a open secret that sexual interactions are a common part of Hollywood. This may not be ideal to most, but you’d have to be unbelievably niave to have your dream job be ‘Movie Star’ and to have never thought “would I have sex to advance my career?’

Let's also not forget that we have laws governing sexual harassment in the work place. If someone repeatedly approaches you about having sex with them, especially in a way that is persistent (read: manipulative), then it creates a hostile work environment. I would argue that repeatedly asking for a massage or asking someone to sleep with you in exchange for a favor in the work place absolutely constitutes sexual harassment. Unless, of course, you're a prostitute.

Why should the movie industry be held to a different standard? Because 'that's how it's always been'? That seems kind of shitty and unfair.

[+]LeaChan1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

OK so according to you instead of just telling men to stop putting women in the situation we should tell women that their options are to either get sexually assaulted or give up their dream job entirely?

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

Not at all.

I’m saying, if your primary concern is ‘feeding your family’, then becoming a movie star seems like a far-fetched way to do so.

And, if your dream job is becoming a movie star, well, casting couches have been a notorious open secret for decades. There are thousands of talented and motivated people who want to be movie stars. Some of them are willing to offer powerful producers sex for the opportunity, even if they find the act distasteful, they consent to further there careers. They may regret the decision once they are famous and successful, but as long as the were not forced against their will, it was a conscious decision made by an adult.

To say that somehow the producer’s ‘power’ took away that person’s consent actively infantalizes and demeans the human being who made the decision to do something to advance their career. Negotiations are almost never done from positions of equality; there is almost always someone in a stronger position.

As long as those people are given the opportunity to walk away, it is no one is removing their consent. They can walk away from the sleeze offering a job in exchange for sex. If they are good enough actors, then their natural talent will shine through at the next audition. If that’s not the case, well, not everyone get their dream jobs. Many people have to sacrifice dreams for practicality when trying to feed their families.

A lot of these complaints seem like people who took on bad mortgages in the early 2000s. It waa a shitty decision that you now regret, but no one was actually forcing you to sign the agreement.

There are, of course, examples of actual assault and rape and abuse, where the attacker refused to acknowledge the choice of the victim. But choosing to fuck a guy to get a job seems like the a consentual act someone chose to do, after wieghing the options of ‘become a movie star’ or ‘work at Dunkin Donuts’. Sex is a perfectly valid bargaining chip, in my opinion, which is why it should be strongly protected.

[–]Mode1961 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Feed their family: Holy shit seriously, you do realize that the vast majority of these women are young , late teens or early twenties, they didn't have 'families' to feed when this happened.

Appeal to Emotion fallacy much.

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

You're right, it's perfectly fine to offer someone a job if they'd only suck your dick. This culture is perfectly okay, and we should be blaming the women instead of the creepy old fucks perpetrating these acts.

[+]LeaChan1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Regardless, do you really think that instead of just telling men to stop putting young women In this situation the better option is to tell women that their two options are to be raped or give up their dream job?

[–]Mode1961 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Sure and MEN know this and the vast majority don't do it. It is your responsibility to protect yourself. jeez, we even teach young children to look both ways before crossing the street and no one every freaks out when we tell kids this by saying "you are victim blaming, car drivers should just learn to drive better".

BTW, no one is entitled to their dream job.

[+]LeaChan1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

No one is entitled to their dream job.

But people are entitled to blackmail others for sex?

[–]Mode1961 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That isn't what I said at all. Nice strawman.

[–]adamdavid85 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You think only men subscribe here. Cute.

[+]LeaChan1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

I obviously don't because I'm a woman and I've been subscibed here for years.

[–]adamdavid85 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It just seemed odd to me that your use of language in your comment implied that abuse of power in a sexual context is something men do to women. Power is something that people abuse all the time, just like the many opportunistic women trying to ruin men's careers with #MeToo. Or the trio of liars who successfully ruined Jian Ghomeshi's career.

[+]LeaChan1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I am fully aware that women can abuse power over men as well. I don't think anyone in power should be asking people for sexual favors in exchange for jobs, it puts people in the position of choosing what is basically rape or giving up their dream job and it's messed up. But in this context we were talking about the men who are doing this, had we been talking about both I would have mentioned both.

[–]adamdavid85 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe I misread your comment, then. Your first sentence of "it's what none of these men seem to get" implied to me that either:

1) None of the people who post here (who are all men) get this.

or

2) Only men are disagreeing that this was sexual assault or not an issue.

If you find either of those interpretations uncharitable I apologize, but that being how I read your first sentence kind of guided my reading of the rest of your comment.

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

Except we're talking about a man abusing power over women, so how is your statement even relevant?

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

Having sex with him resulted in him not ruining your career. As Gwyneth Paltrow said on Letterman years ago, for exchange for being coerced by Weinstein, Weinstein will do nothing. That's his gift: not doing anything.

[–]cajunrevenge 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I would say the cases of sex for helping their careers is not sexual assault so long as they had a choice. If anything its prostitution which, according to our arbitrary justice system, makes them both guilty. If its not prostitution then I am going to start a business where women have sex with you for promises of future money and if you dont pay up I report it as a rape. Apparently the only way its illegal is if you pay up front.

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

Is fucking you way to the top, still a turn of phrase?

[–]Mode1961 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

choice

But what is a choice I wonder.

IMHO, you always have a choice, it might be a tough choice but it is a choice. Are all choices supposed to be easy ones.

"Sleep with me or you don't get the part in this movie". You still have a choice, even if that choice ruins your career, there are always other careers. I often wonder if these women felt they didn't have a choice because they are entitled to that movie career they dreamed about and if they are entitled to it then having to choose something else to do simply didn't feel like a choice.

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

Most highly paid professions involve "tough choices" to rise to the top. Its not right, but you always have the choice. No different than the whole doping in cycling thing. Yeah...you have to dope to compete...but if you are that opposed to violating your bodily integrity with refusing your blood or taking drugs that may kill you, then make the choice not to compete.

In both cases the professional decides that the chance for stardom/success and ability to pursue their career of choice is more important than the unsavory condition precedent / price of admission.

[–]cajunrevenge 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If someone was already hired for a part and then the propositioned sex or they would lose the role then that would be illegal. Have sex with me and I will make sure you get the part is choice and not moral for either side. The people that are really losing out are the ones that refused his advances or never got the chance to trade sex for advancing their careers. Personally I would love to have sex with an unattractive female if it made me shit loads of money. Yeah it would suck but so does working a shitty low paying job 40 hours a week.

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

immoral != unlawful

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

Prostitution is unlawful, though.

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

Preaching to the choir on that one.

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

I think we're talking about repeat actions, not just "suck my dick and I'll give you the part." Also, it seems to me like it's much more "Keep servicing me, and I won't ruin your acting career (which you've probably been honing for years)".

I don't understand why people are defending Weinstein. Is that behavior acceptable to you?

[–]Mode1961 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I am not defending Weinstein: You do realize responsibility isn't a 100% / 0% thing right?

Weinstein can be the biggest asshole in the world and the women who slept with him to get parts still bear some of the responsibility. They made the choices they made and if it worked out (which for some it did) for them, then great. If it didn't work out as planned that is sad but they still made the choice they did.

Sex is really weird in the West, if a company or its CEO insist (and most do) that a person work 60+ hours a week to get ahead and the employee does it and gets the corner office, people would be outraged at the employee suddenly starts complaining but some reason when it comes to sex everyone is just out of their minds offended.

[–]Moonchopper 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But by laying some of the blame at the feet of the women, you're removing some of the blame from Weinstein. Why should we give a shit whether or not the women used it to get ahead? It doesn't make Weinstein any less scummy, does it?

[–]Mode1961 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Wrong: Blame is not a zero sum game. BOTH can be equally to blame.

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

Pretty fucked up that you think the blame is 50/50.

[–]Mode1961 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pretty fucked up that you think I said that, I said "BOTH CAN" not "BOTH ARE".

[–]MydnightRose 25 points26 points27 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Glad to see my thoughts being shared. These actresses went willingly on the couch and kept their mouths shut so they could become famous; now years later they want to cry "I'm a victim". Bitch please, should have kept your legs closed.

[–]AaronStack91 13 points14 points15 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The pretty much black listed Courteney Love when she said "No", I don't think it is as simple as that.

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

I'm certain that a lot of the women Harvey slept with came to him knowing all they needed to do to get their shot at making it big was sleeping with him or something similar.

But I'm also certain a few women that disagreed with that approach may have been pressured.

It's going to be difficult to figure out who were truly pressured and who just showed up to his hotel simply by being asked?

[–]trygold 12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't think deffending Weinstein is good for mens rights. It is as counter productive as anything the most radical feminist has ever done or said. The man and men like him are not representative of what a man should be or how a man should act.

Nobody should use a position of power to coerce anyone into a sexual act. This should be the position men's rights takes on that issue .

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

Weinstein is a creep and most likely did assault some women , but that doesn't automatically make everybody he has had relations with a victim.

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

Not even remotely relevant to my point.

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

I don't think deffending Weinstein is good for mens rights

It is relevant to the point. Your first line implies the op is defending that pos. He's not, he's simply pointing out that some are not victims and are really prostituting themselves. Maybe re-read your post.

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

Not necessarily. I think legalised prostitution is fine and you could argue that using money to buy sex is based on a position of power. The person you are buying from wants the money. It is legalised and popular in Germany, Austria Turkey Greece, New Zealand etc. So forcing someone is wrong but a free choice I do not agree with you.

In the UK prostitution is legal.

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

What you are arguing could be said about any job. Ie, We are forced to work to make money. I think prostitution should be legal. I also think anyone forcing others into prostitution with violence or coercion should be prosecuted.

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

Yes, totally agree.

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

"Tantamount to" nothing. You (general you, not Greer) fucked your way to fame. Own it.

Note, I ain't judging. Might well have done the same in their position. You use what you have and do what you can to get ahead. May not be pretty or proper, but that's life. Just don't come crying about it later looking to double dip on your deal. Especially not when it made you absurdly fucking wealthy.

[–]matrix2002 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

She has a point. I have heard more than one woman on a podcast say that while they clearly think he was monster, if they had had the opportunity to suck his dick for a million dollar role, they would probably do it.

It gets really blurry about what is consent and what constitutes rape or sexual harassment.

For me, what's weird is how women are constantly trying to convince each other that they are strong.

I think guys mainly grow up with this mentality that if you are not strong, it's your fault and if someone picks on you, you need to bitch slap them in the face.

The idea is that by projecting weakness, you invite people to prey on you.

The whole me too movement has important elements that we need to figure out.

Men are clearly to blame, but women need to get their shit together too. By not reporting sexual violence or harassment, you encourage the person to keep doing it.

I know it's not easy, but standing up for yourself:

1) Prevents it from happening to you again.

2) Can prevent it from happening to other people.

And women need to realize that just because they feel like something was sexual in nature, that doesn't mean it was. Just like men don't understand women, women don't understand men as well.

And lastly, it sucks because I feel like I can't speak honestly about this except on the internet anonymously because of the backlash that would result from someone in my social life or work.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It gets really blurry about what is consent and what constitutes rape or sexual harassment.

It shouldn't. If you agree to proceed either verbally or physically, then you consented. If you made a momentary decision to trade your self-esteem, self-respect, and morals to advance your career, you consented. If you gave into "pressure" because you were "worried you'd lose the opportunity of a lifetime," you consented.

I don't know why we keep treating consent as something different in the sexual context than in any other aspect of our daily lives. Do I WANT to get up every morning at 5:00 and work for 10 hours. NO. I DO NOT. But I agreed to do so because I want to make money. Do I WANT to go to my inlaws this weekend. NO. But I agree to do so in order to appease my wife and prevent an argument. Etc. etc.

People CONSENT to all sorts of shit they don't WANT all the frickin time. It is entirely possible, and legal, and ethical to consent to sex that you do not want for a whole host of reasons----most of which make you some version of a prostitute.

[–]matrix2002 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What would you define as "physically consenting"?

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

1) Actively participating in sexual contact or 2) allowing any period of prolonged sexual contact while conscious and not mentally incapacitated.

[–]matrix2002 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can easily find exceptions to this on both sides. The fact is, there is no hard definition to what constitutes consent, anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

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

Oh, the hypocrisy.

If anything shows how dishonest and manipulative feminists are, this does.

First feminists are calling for women to be able to do anything they want... Now they are shaming other women for doing exactly what feminism wanted in the first place.

Oh, the irony. It's delicious.

[–]fluidlogic3 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Yup groupies spread for anyone famous no matter how old or ugly. Celebrities get as much sex as they want all the time. Women are just sluts to them.

[+]The-Beeper-King1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

Having sex is easy. 5-12 minutes is easy. There's that TIL post that explains what Ruth Bader Ginsburg sacrificed when her husband got testicular cancer, and it's no wonder she became a Supreme Court justice. 4 years of uni and another 3 in law school, however many more for a PHD, decades on the bench. That's not easy.

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

Ruth Bader Ginsberg

Ruth Bader Ginsberg believes that the Supreme Court needs to be entirely and only women. She’s a senile old person much like the caricature of Trump, but because she’s a liberal woman she gets a pass on being a female chauvinist. Why are there so many feminists socialists here today?

[–]fluidlogic3 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Never said it was nor do I discount her accomplishments.

[+]The-Beeper-King1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Oh I totally agree with you. I was hoping my comment reinforced yours.

[–]fluidlogic3 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes thanks, your a smart person, many people don’t understand my logic.

[+]The-Beeper-King1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Most people don't understand logic period. I'm pretty sure Iran why the world is crazy. Sucks because logic used to be a class is school.

[–]fluidlogic3 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea I know now it just about feeling good

[–]fluidlogic3 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes very true it is the harder route. But spreading them can make things harder, depending on your perspective.

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

Germaine Greer -- she was an internet troll before the internet even existed. She's about as credible as Alex Jones, but not as entertaining.

[+]DevineRetribution1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't know who she is, or what she's famous for, but I was disgusted when I saw this, I know there are ore recent interviews along the same lines, this is the first I found with Lana Del Rey making it sound like she slept around to try to make it.

"You know, I have slept with a lot of guys in the industry, but none of them helped me get my record deals. Which is annoying."

Full article including more of her bullshit. I really hope it's satire.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/lana-del-rey-slept-lot-guys-industry-article-1.1876920

Im not saying she accused anyone of rape, but the mind-set is clearly out there to do this.

[–]adamdavid85 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Germaine Greer is a very prominent Australian 2nd-wave feminist icon. If you're a feminist today and don't know who she is, whether or not you agree or disagree with her views, that's pretty much a guarantee to me that you've done very little research into feminism.

As for Lana, why are you trying to fault her for acknowledging a basic truth? Women have been using sex to get ahead since before recorded history. You can dislike that, or find it unsavoury, but it's just how humans are built. It permeates famous works of literature and historical accounts with myriad examples of it - you've heard the story of Cleopatra, right?

This doesn't just apply to sex; our entire social structure is based on exchanging something one person wants with something another wants. Women are the gatekeepers of sex and generally get to decide whether or not it happens. Thus, she has the power to offer that to get something else she might want. This is seen in many social primate species especially in the ones closest to humans. Heck, we're far less brutal about it than, say bonobos. Females of that species trade sex for the right to forage in that male's preferred spots and to have him not kill her young in an act of competitive infanticide.

[+]DevineRetribution1 points 8 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm acknowledging sex to be part of a transaction in this case, and I agree with those who say that some of the women may have went along with Harvey to see what it could do for their careers. I don't think all of these women were raped, the existence of using sex as a tool to get ahead is not a secret, so why would we, as a society, not suspect that some of these women figured "what the hell, why not?" and went for it.

It's disgusting that she considers her failure to find a lover to further her music career as "annoying." It's cringe-worthy. Her music isn't good enough and neither is her pussy? Keep it to yourself honey.

[–]adamdavid85 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It came off more as a glib sort of sarcasm to me, I really can't read as much into it as you have.

[–]The_0bserver -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hey. Lets not go there shall we? That guy was clearly someone in power. He knew how to use it, and he abused it. Lets call rape rape. Whether guys do it or girls.

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

Just because a man fucks someone less powerful than then doesn't make it rape. Jesus, women are not children .

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

A woman saying the truth about other women? I am legitimately shocked.

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

The same woman who posed lovingly over a teenage boy with his genitals covered in rose petals for her book The Beautiful Boy.

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

Why are there calls to "end" Woody Allen's career now? Dylan has been loudly telling that story for 20 years.

Either he did it, or he didn't. If he did it, why weren't there calls 20 years ago? If he didn't, then WHAT THE FUCK?

In any event, it's weird. The societal level of belief has skyrocketed, and I can't really understand why.

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

Good for her. If someone was really raping women, they’d have fought back, screamed for help.

I didn’t see scars on this man’s face. I didn’t see videos of him pining a woman down forcefully as she screamed.

I saw a really pathetic video of him begging for attention from a woman and saying “please please please please”.

This guy is not some hardened, sociopathic rapist.

He’s a loser who happens to have a lot of power, and because of that, sluts wanted to sleep with him to fastrack their career. And now that they have what they want, they want to keep climbing to the top on a mountain of male corpses.

Disgusting.

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

Oh, do we like Germaine "I love photos of naked boys" Greer now?

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

I really hate the British spelling of whining.

[–]AditKhan90 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

you would assume that women can figure that out for themselves...but what a world we live in

[–]omegaphallic -4 points-3 points-2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

"Most controversially, she called for authorities to ditch the concept of rape as a crime in favour of a 'coherent law of sexual consent'"

She wants to get rid of rape as a crime and WE ARE TGE RAPE APOOGISTS?!?!?!?

she doesn't think rape is a crime, it's just an every day occurrence, WTF?

Feminists get crazier every fucking day, I just can keep up with the craziness.

[–]Stormcrownn 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"I have seen the police working up a rape case trying desperately hard to build it up so it will stand up in court - and wasting their time,' she explained.'

'The burden of proof is too high and that's because the tariff is too onerous. Rape is a daily crime, it's not spectacular. What we need is a coherent law of sexual assault.'

Helps reading the entire thing.

[–]omegaphallic 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I did read the whole thing, she basically wants rape reduced from a criminal felony to a simple misterminer, because proving rape is hard, which will water things down to an insanely level. It will enable real rapists to basically rape at will if all they have to fear is a fucking ticket for getting caught.

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

I didn't see her use the phrase misdemeanor.

I'm not sure I agree with your assumption that lowering the requirements to prove it means lower punishment.

It's why says we need a coherent law.

[–]adamdavid85 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Her broader point is that if you trivialize the definition of rape and sexual assault to the extent that #MeToo and modern feminists seem to want to, it can no longer carry such a severe sentence in criminal courts.

As in, "if rape is so common and so banal, then the accompanying punishment must also be minimal."

[–]Arby01 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, I don't think you read that carefully enough - she wants to ditch rape as a crime and replace it with a law about sexual consent, with the intent to make it easier to get convictions for 'violating consent'. Her rant includes stating that the bar for rape convictions is too high - this isn't 'do away with rape', it's 'do an end run around due process' by creating a law where the accused has to prove he had consent, since the accuser only has to say 'no, he didn't'.

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

So basically Title IX in the legal system? no thanks.

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