Re: Bad idea: Punishing false rape accusers

"Rauni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:23:39 -0800, "Sir Jessy of Anti"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rauni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> > > > Typical soc.men twisting of the facts, data collected from the
> >> >> > > > National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice
> >Statistics)
> >> >> > > > consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or
who
> >> >> > > > initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to
be
> >> >> > > > injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Still peddling the same ol' shtick here, eh Rauni?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Men are bigger and stronger than women for the most part.  It
> >stands
> >> >to
> >> >> > > reason
> >> >> > > when you start a fight with a Mac truck, you lose, and lose
badly.
> >> >I've
> >> >> > > asked you
> >> >> > > before to give us some insight into what this might mean other
than
> >> >the
> >> >> > > obvious.
> >> >> > > But no, you just keep throwing this out there - kind of like the
> >> >soc.men
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > > accuse of doing
> >> >> > > the exact same thing.  Women are hurt more!  This proves
> >everything!
> >> >> Well
> >> >> > > in fact it
> >> >> > > does little to prove who initiated what, and it simply reaffirms
> >the
> >> >> > > obvious:  most men are physically
> >> >> > > stronger than most women.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Okay - using your analogy.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You have a Mac truck and  a subcompact. Which would you think
would
> >be
> >> >> more
> >> >> > risky and potentially damaging to use if you planned to weave in
and
> >out
> >> >> of
> >> >> > traffic?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Rules of the road (as in all things) apply equally, but practical
> >> >> allowance
> >> >> > is made for capability (ya don't see too many Coopers at weigh in
> >> >> stations -
> >> >> > even though highway weight codes technically apply to them as
well).
> >> >>
> >> >> No, but occationally I see one of the fly in front of a Mac, slam on
> >the
> >> >> brakes, and nearly cause an
> >> >> accident.  You see, the Mac truck being built as it is - can't stop
on
> >a
> >> >> dime.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 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
> >committed
> >> >> 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
> >> >behavior. The Napoleonic code actually gave rules for proper beating
of
> >> >wives.
> >> >
> >> >> Add to this the hundreds of empirical studies that have shown
violence
> >to
> >> >be
> >> >> initiated 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. 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. 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? Debatable. Who lost control? Debatable again.
> >But
> >> >who was damaged is NOT debatable.
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> I guess he doesn't understand the *legal* definition of self-defense
> >> "The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence
> >> with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary. "
> >>
> >> Oh yeah the definition of reasonable "not excessive or extreme; fair
> >> Being within the bounds of common sense"
> >
> >So it's reasonable for her to hypothetically punch him in the face, but
not
> >*fair* for him
>
> Damn are you trying to be stupid?  I don't recall saying that her
> behavior were reasonable.

You said I did not understand the legal definition of self-defense.  You
then went on to
describe what is reasonable.  However, my assertion (here it is):

"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?"

...never mentioned being excessive, it simply said "strike her back" which
could mean a small tap,
to a full fledged slap/punch, depending on the person - and their mental
state.  Which of course is totally reasonable,
and more than that - somewhat expected by the individual who is dumb enough
to use violence first!


Actually it is stupid. But to defend himself
> from what?

A candle stick that weighs 30 pounds, or similar implements like ashtrays
thrown at his head?
How about the threat of permanent extinction from his children's lives?

All he has to do is leave and never be around the bitch
> again. He would have to be in immediate physical threat for it to
> reasonable for him to return a punch.

Ah, but here we come to the quandary.  Feminists would be the first to say
that
any expression or intonation of violence is _unreasonable_ if done to a
woman (let me elaborate - feminists
have protested the convictions of women who have _murdered_ their husbands
*in their sleep*, and claimed self defense due to abuse - and claimed
that controlling spending to a reasonable amount is _controlling_ abusive
behavior etc etc etc).

> >to defend himself by doing likewise?   Seems you are the one who
> >misunderstands the definition
>
> I suggest you look up the definition of defense. He is not defending
> himself. He will end in jail if he punches back.

Of course!  You wouldn't have it any other way, would you?

Same would apply if
> he were in a bar and a stranger punched him and he punched back thus
> causing bodily harm to the stranger

Putting aside whether or not you could legally compare the two (obviously
VAWA, PROP 117 in Canada etc
show you can't) I'm sure that happens more than domestic violence, but one
thing
is also for sure, and that is that you won't find NEAR the amount of arrests
for individuals
conducting themselves in self-defense in this arena.  For one thing,
the stats are less important to the police (and by extension the public),
and thus they don't
record every incident.  Also, they don't get put on a registry (like in the
proposed and almost sanctioned
UK laws) and are not likely subjected to forced confessions, and threats of
deprivation of children.


> >of reasonable force.  Reverse the genders, he the aggressor, she the
> >defendant, and all of a sudden
> >PRESTO *your* view changes.
>
> Nope it doesn't. The twit needs to leave the man pronto as so as he
> becomes violent.

Agreed.  I notice how you eternally ignore the situation I posited which was
the
reverse situation.  Of course, the (abused) 'twit' leaving in this situation
is
depriving the woman of her right to his cash!  He's just so abusive, isn't
he?

>
> >It becomes acceptable, she can punch to her
> >hearts content - no matter how much she
> >ends up hurting him.  At least my hypothetical situation is consistent.
> >We've got a word for this:  Bigotry.
> >
> Yawn, more victim mentality. You read between the lines and see things
> that aren't written.

On the contrary, you have chosen to respond with more idiocy.

> >> >
> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> And the military is *not*  always about physical strength. Most Airmen
> >> and Sailors don't see any combat.
> >
> >Nice to see both of you miss my point.  Whooooosh over your head it goes.
>
> That is because you *don't* have a point other than a lot of whining

Uh huh.  I care about women's lives and equal expectations under law, and
*I* am whining.

You've come a long way baby!

> >>****I can assure you the enemy makes no such fru-fru distinctions.
*****
> >
>