Re: Bad idea: Punishing false rape accusers

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 20:40:00 -0800, "Sir Jessy of Anti"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"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?

Oh moving the goal posts again. You were talking about a woman
punching a man.

>How about the threat of permanent extinction from his children's lives?

Damn you can't stay on the subject can't you?  
You were speaking about a woman hitting a man. Now you are going to
add qualifiers. 

>
>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 soon 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?

I *did* address the situation you posted. Why don't you reread what I
wrote. This only goes to prove my point, you are not reading for
content,  Read again **The twit needs to leave the man **

^^^
>>
>> >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.

Shit you just proved my point. You are so agendized you can't even
read what I wrote!
>
>> >> >
>> >> >> 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.

Sounds more like you want to play my pain is worse than your pain.
>
>You've come a long way baby!
>
>> >>****I can assure you the enemy makes no such fru-fru distinctions.
>*****
>> >
>>
>