Re: Bad idea: Punishing false rape accusers

"MMET572" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> "Sir Jessy of Anti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "MMET572" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > "Sir Jessy of Anti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


>> > If you're driving a Mac, its a given that you're expected to keep
>> > that fact in mind. If you're capable of putting another person in 
>> > the hospital with your greater upper body strength keep that in mind 
>> > as well.
>>
>> I see your point, but like I said, there are many variables to
>> consider. My point was that Rauni's trotting out of that statistic
>> does little to show the interpersonal dynamics that exist in violent 
>> relationships, or the rate of DV comitted and/or initiated by both men 
>> and women.  On top of this, men are socially conditioned to 'never hit 
>> a woman',whereas the reverse does not apply.
> 
> That is a pretty sweeping statement. I would say that a good many
> cultures in the world, even in the western world, have the opposite
> case - that hitting a woman is acceptable or even necessary.
> 
> Not so long ago there were even rules encoded that sanctioned such
> behaviour. The Napoleonic code actually gave rules for proper beating
> of wives.

Did it also give rules for, say, the proper punishment of a man for 
lechery, heresy, affronting the dignity of a noble woman?

> 
>> Add to this the hundreds of empirical studies that have shown
>> violence to be intiated at relatively equal rates in intimate 
>> relationships, and you have a different picture than what
>> Rauni would like to present.
> 
> Depends how you define violence. 

Which is the basis of the problem.  

Def.  Violence (feminist version):  Any act committed by a man that 
displeases a woman.  Evidence of physical harm is NOT required.

Def.  Violence (according to The Evil Male Patriarchy (tm):  Daily 
behavioural corrections that leave the old gal still able to cook dinner.  

> I have two very good friends who,
> unfortunately, have very different personalities. He clams up when
> confronted on personal matters, she screams. When she gets especially
> frustrated she throws things (not at him) and breaks things.
> 
> He OTOH, is passive agressive and doesn't respond at all. 

Really?  What does that leave her?  Agressive-aggressive?

> One time she
> got especially frustrated at his unwillingness to discuss an issue and
> she grabbed him by the upper arm. He took her hand, twisted it, and
> gave her a severe bruise and twisted wrist.
> 
> Who initiated violence? Debateable. Who lost control? Debateable
> again. 

Fair enough.

>But who was damaged is NOT debateable.

Sure it is, by simply asking the question "why" she was damaged.
Feminists and their apologists would rather leave that question off the 
list, for obvious reasons.

>> For instance, were the wounds inflicted in self-defense?   If a woman
>> punches a man in the face, and he strikes her back,
>> as a generalization - who do you think will be hurt more?  
>> Are these violent acts somehow 'less' or 'more' than equal to one 
>> another?
>>
> 
> Reasonable force to restrain, but what you're talking about isn't
> restraint but retaliation.

Such as grabbing someone by the arm because they didn't respond verbally in 
the correctly authorised and expected manner?  That kind of reasonable?

And by the way, in certain circumstances, retaliation IS restraint.  At the 
extreme, consider deadly force in a personal defense scenario.


>> You raise an interesting question though.  If men are required to
>> restrain themselves in violent altercations with women,
>> than what are women doing in the military?
> 
> Because the military is all about measured and directed use of force
> and violence. I would put it to you that that being the case, some
> women would be actually overqualified for military service.

Incorrect.  There are no women's shelters on the battlefield.  When the bad 
guys start shooting, where are such women going to run?


>> I can assure you the enemy makes no such fru-fru distinctions.  This is 
>> an example of claiming victim status where suitable, and equality when 
>> convienent.
>>
>> I'm not a violent person, so given pretty much any amount of
>> agrivation, it would still take something akin to flight or fight for
>> me to even use violence in self-defense.    That makes
>> this topic somewhat more philosphical for me, i.e. I have no vested
>> interest.
>> Personally, I think to _some_ degree these types of people seek each
>> other 
> 
> I would have to say that you have a point there.
> 
>> out.  Not in every case, or maybe
>> not even in the majority of cases, but nevertheless certainly in some
>> cases there is a fucked up dynamic going on here.
>>
>>
> 
> I've known or heard of enough repeat victims to think that there must
> be a link to self esteem or personality issues that drives these women
> to choose teh wrong men.
> 
> I also know that abusers escalate.


By themselves, or with help?



TR II


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---