Punishing women for false accusation of rape

What is?

My supposed vindictiveness? This is scientific?

Or the sexist stereotyping that you just keep piling on?

Where did I say that?

You just don't get it, do you?

See, men like you, who froth at the mouth at these types of stories are fairly typical. You trot out the sexist tropes, you keep trying to push this ideal that you really are for women's "equality", not "rights" because women's rights to men like you is apparently women wanting more rights then men or something something stupid.. You then use demeaning and sexist language to describe women and when you speak to women, while touting your own manliness.

In other words, you aren't saying or doing anything new. We have seen this repeatedly, on this site, in real life, in the workplace, in the media. Everywhere. You use it to feed your own chauvinistic ideals and sexism. You feed on it.

It's not that this issue should not be discussed. It's that it is ridiculous to get so worked up about it as you have been. Do you know why I roll my eyes at men like you who start frothing at the mouth about this?

False accusations of rape are exceptionally rare. The rate of sexual violence has risen in Australia. Fairly drastically.

But do you know what gets the most attention in the media? These exceptionally rare instances.

Doesn't that strike you as strange?

While you were frothing at the mouth about these two women, dozens of women and girls in Australia were raped and sexually assaulted. But what got more media attention? For example, rates of false accusations for sexual violence is pretty much the same across other crimes. But that is rarely mentioned or discussed:

What is also infrequently talked about is that the rates for false allegations of sexual violence are no higher than those reported in other categories of crime. Even so, it’s fair to say that victims of other crimes (such as theft or burglary) are not so routinely treated with suspicion as are the victims of sexual violence.​

The hypocrisy, sexism, chauvinism and misogyny is glaring. But I guess it is just a case of you just looking for an opportunity to call women "bitches" and whine about women's rights?

You see, men such as yourself fall on these cases because it suits your beliefs and agenda. I mean, yours is clear. Your anti-women swill has been going on this website for a while now. Your sexism and chauvinism is known and has been put on display for a while. Your misogyny is equally known and recognised. Your refusal to even listen to what women say about how they feel about how men treat them or speak to them in public spaces is also known and glaringly obvious as to what kind of person you are. You follow the pattern. You demean women while touting your own manhood.

It's not that I don't think the issue of false accusations should not be discussed. It's that when men like you bring it up in the manner in which you bring it up, red flags start waving, because it is just obvious that it just feeds into your own misogyny and you use it as a platform to do real damage to much more people than these two women *ahem* "conniving bitches", could have ever done.

The evidence speaks for itself, paddoboy. You have a history here behaviour wise, particularly when it comes to women's rights. I quote your own words to you and you accuse me of lying. In short, I don't need to push any lines. Your words and arguments speak for themselves. You deny doing these things, while doing these things.

Which still makes no sense.

You misunderstand. I do not care about how your marriage and whatever gender specific roles you have in your relationships because a) it has nothing to do with this thread, b) I don't know you, nor do I care to and c) no one really gives a crap about it because - refer to a).

You are using your wife and your relationship to try to paint yourself as being for women is backfiring horrifically. Because it is further proof of your gender specific views of women. But most importantly, it has nothing to do with this thread.

No, it does not have anything to do with this thread's subject matter.

And if you think quoting your words back to you is somehow terrible because you view it as an allegation against your person, then perhaps you should refrain from posting like a misogynistic two bit caveman.

No it wasn't.

Look up the meaning of "demeaning", "context" for starters. And then go back and read that warning again.

Because you start trotting out these terms to demean others. Like when you called me "girly".. It's what you do to try to put people in their place.. Hence 'demeaning'.. And particularly in the context of this discussion, it is particularly offensive. Especially when you were told it wasn't welcome and your ranting when it's pointed out to you that we often do not like it and you respond by going on about women hitting on you, etc and how you do it all the time, kind of makes our point.

At this rate, you are literally writing our arguments for us.

Stop doing it. When strange men do it to me, I rarely speak up because I don't know if the guy could be a psycho and become violent. So when strange men say these things to me, like call me 'love', 'darl', etc, I say nothing, I break eye contact, smile politely and put as much distance between myself and them as quickly as possible. It makes me uncomfortable. Because more often than not, they do this while staring at my boobs, or they make a comment about how I look.. 'you're a pretty thing, aren't ya'..

Your doubling down on this is ridiculous. It is not appropriate behaviour. Save it for the women you know and are close to and with.

And refrain from doing it on this site. Respect other people's boundaries.

 

You are literally writing our arguments for us..

Have you read your first 3 posts in this thread?

For example, in your OP:

To the one, you just described sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape as "inequalities". To the other, you blathered on about oh yeah, women's equality, blah blah blah, and then put a huge big "but" in the next paragraph, before describing 2 cases of false accusations..

And then the second post:

You then refer to these two women as "conniving bitches".. Which really, speaks for itself.

And your next post:

You literally lie.

You try to argue that "such sexual misconduct" has somehow been addressed and is now non existent..? What planet do you live on?

Rape and sexual assault has been addressed and is now non existent? Really? Because that is what Seattle was talking about.

And you then try to argue that they should receive the same sentence that a rapist would get (which is laughable given how few rapists are actually sentenced and when they are, it is usually either less than a year and/or are given parole).. Because apparently lying is the same as rape..

You then tried to argue how you really love women because you carry their baggage, etc..

Just stop.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Reading and comprehension is difficult for you, isn't it?

Your inability to address the issues raised simply makes my point for me.

 

You can't figure out how a racist man like Trump won the election in the US, after two terms under an African American President the right in the US had repeatedly tried to paint as being illegitimate, including Trump, who pushed conspiracy theories about his birthplace...? And who then pushed scare campaigns about illegal immigration and brown people apparently invading the US from the South, to a bunch of racists...

You think it's because of "extremes" such as the women's movement? Are you for real?

You can't figure out how a wishy washy Labor opposition leader, who instead of listening to the voters, thought he could coast on popularity alone, while dismissing the concerns of lower and middle class Australian voters who were concerned about job security, employment, rising prices - while he sat on the fence about Adani in QLD, for example, and had every appearance of simply going where the wind pointed instead of addressing the substantive issues.. could not win against "ScoMo" who ran on a scare campaign about illegal immigration and asylum seekers..

You think that was because of "extremes" such as the women's movement?

Is this a joke?

And what does this have to do with this thread's topic? Why are you changing the subject?

 

Ya.

And?

What does this have to do with this thread or subject of this thread?

Or is this yet another way of discrediting women again?

 

I think what we're seeing in this thread, to some extent, is a generational divide. It seems that paddoboy is from a generation where sexism was a given, largely unremarked upon and unnoticed by a majority of men. As that generation dies out, it would be nice to hope that its patronising and patriarchal treatment of women dies out with it. Unfortunately, cultural transmission from father to son means that the kind of sexist blindness that is ingrained in these old men will probably remain with us for some time to come, even as more enlightened views gradually become more dominant.

Even that might be too optimistic, of course, because even now we see many instances of men working to roll back advances in women's rights and equality that many would have assumed would not need revisiting. And while many of the men involved still come from that outmoded generation, that by no means account for all of them. Moreover, all of this really only applies to those few nations that have actually made deliberate moves aimed at addressing the oppression of women. So, we still have a very long battle ahead.

We've seen an interesting illustration of how these old men are unable to relate in any way to the actual lived experience of women. All this stuff about how it's okay to refer to women - even strangers - using "pet" names like "love" or "honey" or "sweetheart" is a generational marker as much as anything else. We saw how paddoboy was annoyed when Seattle started referring to him - a man - as "sweety" or "baby doll" or "love". It doesn't occur to paddoboy that when he calls a female shop assistant "love" he is being patronising and presumptuous. It doesn't occur to him that he never uses those sexualised terms of endearment to address male shop assistants. Male assistants are always "mate", because as we all know every male shop assistant wants to be your friend if you're a man. The problem with "mate" is still a problem, but it's not a sexualised problem. It takes liberties that are only assumed to be granted, but it isn't really in the same ballpark as addressing a stranger of the opposite sex as "sweety" or "love" or "honey".

What's most apparent in this kind of behaviour is the lack of empathy that goes with it. There is not a single thought about how the person being addressed is receiving your use of the pet name or your presumptuous false-familiarity. The fact that this behaviour comes to the fore especially in interactions with strangers displays a presumption about the power dynamic in the relationship or transaction. The shop assistant, to be considered polite, is expected to address the male customer as "sir", but the customer is free to use "love" or "honey". Any complaint or questioning of this behaviour by the assistant would result in a no sale and likely the male customer choosing an alternative shop - one in which the staff are deferential to him, as he requires.

This issue of the appropriate manner of address isn't completely black and white, as exchemist correctly pointed out. It is true that these forms of address become a habit, and once they are a habit no thought is given to where they are appropriate or even polite. I also agree that certain forms of address tend to be both class markers and generational markers, which brings me back to my original point.

My own experience of these things is as follows. I should say up front that I am a man, and that makes my experience very different from the experiences of women. I dislike being addressed as "mate" by people (invariably men) who aren't my friends. I notice that form of address when it occurs. I don't complain about it, because to do so would introduce unnecessary friction into a social interaction that would tend to make it harder to achieve the intended goal of the interaction (e.g. making a purchase in a shop). I also find that this is more common in interactions where somebody is trying to assert his power over me - and that can include hoity shop owners in some cases. In Australia, this behaviour is relatively commonplace, and I'd venture that it is, more than anything else, a class marker. It would be a bruising and self-defeating battle to try to hope to fight this in every interaction, because the people who most need to be told have not the faintest inkling that what they are doing is in any way wrong.

I sometimes find myself addressed as "darl" or "love" by women I don't know - again, in shops is a common-enough location where this occurs. In my experience, the women who address me this way are almost invariably older than me. In most instances, I'd say these women are using this form of address simply because it is an unthinking habit they have formed. I think this is as inappropriate as strange men calling me "mate", but I don't feel offended by it in quite the same way. I think partly that is because I associate this kind of thing with maternal - or perhaps grandmotherly - behaviour (although I have never seen my own mother or my grandmothers address a stranger that way). That is, most of the time, if there is any attitude behind the address, it is one of being nice and wanting to help, which is hard to get riled up about. On a rare occasion, there is a hint of harmless flirtation from these older women, which doesn't hurt my ego. Probably, then, the reason it doesn't seem as bad to me as the male version is that it doesn't involve the same kind of implicit declaration of power or entitlement, or at least typically not to the same extent.

What is important - for this thread - though, is not what my experience of this kind of thing is as a man. I like to at least try to put myself in the shoes of a woman experiencing the same thing: the (young?) woman being called "love" or "honey" by the older man; the woman being called "darl" by the shop keeper. If I, as a man, find the power play that so often goes with "mate" to be unwelcome, how much worse it is when a woman is on the receiving end from a man? Because if you're a woman, and a man is asserting his implicit power over you by taking liberties with what he calls you, the question naturally arises as to what other liberties he will be willing to take, given half a chance. And in the case of men, assertive power plays are much more likely to be backed by an implied threat of violence of one type or another.

Perhaps you think I'm making too much of what is, for many, a "harmless" habit. But it is really harmless? If we accept and condone this, what else are we willing to accept or turn a blind eye to?

I'm not about to head down to the fish and chip shop to have it out with the cook about how he chooses to address his customers. However, if he's reading this, I would urge him to take a moment to think about how he is coming across, and how people might feel as a result.

 

11 pages of your words, paddoboy, where you have doubled down on your sexism and misogyny.

Exact same pattern. As always.

You aren't new or original. You aren't even very good at it.

Just same old thing.