Sexual Politics

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

The next generation of our critical feminist thinkers:

By the way, did you know that 1 out of every 5 women on this board will be sexually assaulted, harassed, or brutally raped in her lifetime.

No person of sound mind is going to watch that and become more supportive of feminist causes as a result.

In any case, the adults involved should be arrested for child abuse and the little shits made aware that they need to start paying tax before they earn the right to fucking swear in public.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

By the way, did you know that 1 out of every 5 women on this board will be sexually assaulted, harassed, or brutally raped in her lifetime.

And you somehow find this notion amusing? You rather disgust me GS.

Salomé wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

By the way, did you know that 1 out of every 5 women on this board will be sexually assaulted, harassed, or brutally raped in her lifetime.

And you somehow find this notion amusing? You rather disgust me GS.

I find the "notion" that these "facts" are being repeated constantly throughout the media by militant feminists and their sympathizers, and being believed, not to mention brainwashing 8 year old girls into believing one, if not all of them, are going to be raped in their lifetime to be tragically amusing in a rather disgusting way. So, by all means, heap upon me, a person who has never raped anyone, your righteous indignation and "disgust".

Keep it up GS, your lack of empathy is very illuminating.

CJB wrote:

In any case, the adults involved should be arrested for child abuse and the little shits made aware that they need to start paying tax before they earn the right to fucking swear in public.

That's my main problem with the videos. Children need to start being told that their opinions do not matter. They do not run the show and they have no say in this world.

Whenever I ran my mouth to my father as a kid, he'd reply with: "I don't even know what you just said."

Instead of being dressed up as Disney princesses and being told to swear on camera, these kids should be reading books on REAL feminists and the impact they've had on the world. These bullshit viral videos don't benefit women, only the video creators and the people managing the advertising.

Control wrote:

CJB wrote:

In any case, the adults involved should be arrested for child abuse and the little shits made aware that they need to start paying tax before they earn the right to fucking swear in public.

That's my main problem with the videos. Children need to start being told that their opinions do not matter. They do not run the show and they have no say in this world.

Sounds like an idea, just not the best one when that's exactly the way to create victims of child abuse, is it? Later in turn they get to be the perfect prey for daddies who never ever would rape a girl, she always wanted it, she provoked it, she's just playin hard to get and whatever excuses this s**m brings up. Can't help it, I like the swearing kiddies. Hope they pack a razorblade and knuckles when they run into one of these s***bags later. Yay!

What pisses me off about feminism today is that the brains trust will write countless 1000 word pieces decrying Lana Del Rey, Katie Hopkins, Julie Bishop or any woman of profile for not identifying as a feminist, or pushing projects like 'Everyday Sexism' where some bloke looking at a woman the wrong way apparently makes him a misogynist (who cares about context?). Yet when it comes to even the easier targets of real inequality - eg. ISIS' sexual slave trade, their permissive attitude towards the rape of non-Muslim women and pre-pubescent girls they're nowhere to be heard.

If the modern feminist movement spent half as much time doing constructive work towards addressing real misogyny and feminist inequality in the world as they did chattering amongst themselves, barking at shadows, and courting the mumsnet militia the world would be a better place.

Not sure what a western feminist can do about the sexual slavery that ISIS has submitted the Yazidi women to. There have been countless article decrying the cruelty and injustice of it all, written not just from a feminist but from a humanist perspective. Yet has any real effort been made to free these women?

Vesper wrote:

What pisses me off about feminism today is that the brains trust will write countless 1000 word pieces decrying Lana Del Rey, Katie Hopkins, Julie Bishop or any woman of profile for not identifying as a feminist, or pushing projects like 'Everyday Sexism' where some bloke looking at a woman the wrong way apparently makes him a misogynist (who cares about context?). Yet when it comes to even the easier targets of real inequality - eg. ISIS' sexual slave trade, their permissive attitude towards the rape of non-Muslim women and pre-pubescent girls they're nowhere to be heard.

If the modern feminist movement spent half as much time doing constructive work towards addressing real misogyny and feminist inequality in the world as they did chattering amongst themselves, barking at shadows, and courting the mumsnet militia the world would be a better place.

I agree that lots of it currently looks self-referential, not that I can really judge for I'm not familiar with the modern feminist movement, no more than what I see in the odd headline. Baffling I find how many countries the West courts for their oil keep women as part of the furniture. Iran may not be a nice place for women compared to Paris or London. But Saudi-Arabia? Oman, Yemen, India even? There's way to go, sure. But there's probably also way to go here, I don't know how I would like some of what women get served on a daily basis. And often not by the Brad Pitts of the world but by some flabby disgusting unwashed dimwit calling themugly or uptight. Okay, that's nothing like what women go through under ISIS but I imagine it's not that much fun either.

BWAHAHAHA! A Swedish television program aimed at 3-6 year olds has come under controversy from some because a dancing, cartoon version of a penis and a vagina isn't "inclusive" enough; it is "transphobic" because it teaches little kids that girls have vaginas and boys have penises and doesn't allow for the possibility that some people may be born with both, or identify differently from their genitalia. As one commentor succinctly put it: Because it's not truly progressive unless we teach 3 year olds that some men like to wear panties.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/kids-cartoon-featuring-dancing-genitalia-condemned-as-inappropriate-transphobic/

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

it is "transphobic" because it teaches little kids that girls have vaginas and boys have penises

So if Kindergarten Cop was made today it would be deemed "transphobic"?

Some people just need to be locked up in a psych ward.

EET EEZ NAUT TRAUNZFOPEEK

DER IS NO GENDER-NYOOTRAL BATHROOM!

WHATZ DA MATTA? TEECHA GOT YOU PUSHEEN TOOMINY PEECILZ??

Bunch of sexists. Or something.

p

Sorry, to me that's not about a feminised world but simply shitty journalism. If you live in a feminised world we must be talking through a Twilight-Zone dimension gate. You surely don't live in my world.

Since you would seem to come from publishing (tell me more, I find that awfully interesting) you will be aware what the real problem is: journalists used to check and verify their stories by two independent sources. Now they just have to find two people who think something could be true. And off they go. Happens all the time, and surely not just with rape stories.

As for the story itself, this blunder hardly can debunk all the numerous cases of rape at US universities, can it?

b

Quote :

Now let’s inventory the victims of Rolling Stone’s admittedly non-fabricated journalism:

7.The cause of justice for victims of sexual assault, for the Rolling Stone story will be forever cited by those who falsely insist that rape claims are commonly false.

That would seem to be perhaps the greatest number of victims of this blunder to me.

b

Seems to me that all of this could have been prevented with some very basic facts-checking, like interviewing the girls friends, checking the date of the supposed frat house party or even the identity of the supposed ring leader.

Someone should absolutely have lost their job over this. When the original piece was released, there were some commentators who pointed out how the nature of Jacky's story itself already pushed the boundaries of believability (amongst the many contentious points the fact that she was raped for hours by several men and went through a glass coffee table at the start of the rape, yet she supposedly did not go to the E.R. afterwards).

Erica Ambler wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Now we've got this situation with The Rolling Stone article which alleged that a co-ed was gang raped by a fraternity two years ago at the University of Virginia. The article resulted in the usual "rape activists" holding "Take Back the Night" candle-lit vigils and UVA took the huge step of suspending dozens of fraternities and sororities until it could establish new policies and sensitivity training to combat sexual assaults on the campus. But Rolling Stone has had to retract the story because they no longer trust the story of the woman making the allegations, many of which could have been dis-proven with the slightest bit of journalistic work. To say Rolling Stone's standards fell short is misleading; it implies they made an effort to verify the woman's story.

Well, Columbia's report on Rolling Stone's monumental fuckup is out.

It's hardly complimentary, but you'll have to look hard to find any serious condemnation - I think understated is the word. As someone said to me said to me this morning, "Since when did 'flawed account' mean 'complete fiction?'"

The article was a failure of journalism brought about by the desire to “believe the victim” despite the lack of corroborating evidence. Maybe that's because the prevailing wisdom is that women don't lie and there are no false rapes. Or maybe it's because we're living in a feminised world of emotion over facts, EQ not IQ.

Anyway, no one will lose their jobs over this shitfest not even the author Sabrina Rubin Erdely. Maybe that's not surprising - after all, you'd have to sack many hundreds of other journalists for Erdley's story was parroted worldwide. So much for "Just the facts, ma'am."

Oh well. It's just another day in the fuckup office in twenty first century Salem.

#1 Rolling Stone apologized to the true victims of rape and sexual assault; those our there who may have not told their story and are now afraid to come forward. Did anyone connected with this case apologize to the men of the fraternity? Their house was vandalized. Their activities suspended for a semester. Their reputation libeled. Yet their lives seem almost like a footnote to the story.

#2 Jacqueline Coakley *LIED*, absolutely LIED, about key aspects of this story. It's not a case of misremembering. In fact, she lied about "Drew" before the alleged rape ever occurred, then conveniently blamed him for raping her, which led most people to believe Drew was conveniently made up so that she could later claim he raped her but she wouldn't have to point the finger at anybody real and wouldn't have to be on record about all this. She wanted, in a weird way, the attention and the sympathy rape victims get. He never existed. The phone was fake. The phone number was fake. And Jackie's ex-friends now believe that the "Drew" they thought they were texting with was actually Jackie all along. When are women who make false claims of rape going to be charged with it? It IS a crime. Crystal Mangum didn't get charged for lying to police about being raped by racist frat boys at Duke; maybe if she had she'd have served some jail time and not been free to murder the guy she's now serving a prison sentence for.

If you don't believe Jacqueline was lying, her lawyer's statement says it all:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/05/media/rolling-stone-uva-rape-article-columbia-probe/

Jackie did not cooperate with either the police investigation or Columbia's. Her lawyer told Columbia that it is "in her best interest to remain silent at this time."

She's got some potential legal exposure in all this; don't know whether it's civil or criminal, but a host of different lawyers will be looking into seeing who the men can successfully sue. Rolling Stone, Sabrina Erdely, UVA and the Dean of UVA are all potential targets. But Jacqueline shouldn't be let off the hook just cause she doesn't have much money. UVA and Rolling Stone will end up paying big time.

#3 Where are all those screeching, howling "social justice warriors" who were baying at the moon with candlelight vigils, demanding that the frat be disbanded and the members arrested? Are they going to come forward and apologize now? Or are they going to deflect attention and claim that the story still helped start a "national conversation" and "underlined a very real problem on college campuses"?

Probably somewhere, a long, long time ago, she was raped or molested when she was much younger, and she still hasn't dealt with it, but the way Rolling Stone coddled her doesn't help Jacqueline either. Blaming innocent people for raping you doesn't address the underlying issue. She needs to get real help from real therapists, not help from "activists" who are just pushing a narrative and an agenda.

I agree that legal action looks likely. Any lawyer will be looking for patterns:

1. Whether Jacqueline Coakley made rape allegations in the past. I've no idea if this stuff is true:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1665379/jackie-coakley-made-up-many-fake-rape-stories-about-herself-pinterest-account-suggests-shes-obsessed-with-rape/

2. Whether all of Sabrina Erdely's other journalism withstands third-party fact-checking. I've been looking at some of her other published articles on her website.

http://www.sabrinaerdely.com/archives.html

Erica Ambler wrote:

I agree that legal action looks likely. Any lawyer will be looking for patterns:

1. Whether Jacqueline Coakley made rape allegations in the past. I've no idea if this stuff is true:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1665379/jackie-coakley-made-up-many-fake-rape-stories-about-herself-pinterest-account-suggests-shes-obsessed-with-rape/

2. Whether all of Sabrina Erdely's other journalism withstands third-party fact-checking. I've been looking at some of her other published articles on her website.

http://www.sabrinaerdely.com/archives.html

Didn't Jacqueline Coakley also allege that in April of 2012 or 2014 a couple of guys threw beer/Coke bottles at her? Police investigated but could find no evidence? Or did I get her mixed up with someone else? Because I think she alleged two separate incidents, and in both incidents she was assaulted with bottles, but only in the rape allegation was she sexually assaulted with a bottle.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Didn't Jacqueline Coakley also allege that in April of 2012 or 2014 a couple of guys threw beer/Coke bottles at her? Police investigated but could find no evidence? Or did I get her mixed up with someone else? Because I think she alleged two separate incidents, and in both incidents she was assaulted with bottles, but only in the rape allegation was she sexually assaulted with a bottle.

No idea. I'm more interested in how the Rolling Stone article ever got into print. So many reputations destroyed over this.

I'm wondering if this an isolated example of Sabrina Erdely's work or might it become another Johann Hari affair? I'll leave others to examine her previous work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Hari