Pages

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Campus Lies: Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault


Recently my campus's Women's Center has begun their promotional activities to raise awareness about domestic violence and sexual assault. Their posters cover the outdoor quad. Signs proclaim: 1 in 4 Women are Raped, 1 in 3 Women have been Abused, More than 3 Women a Day are Murdered by their Husbands or Boyfriends in the U.S., and 60% of Rapes are Not Reported.

My first question was, if the majority of rapes are not reported, then how do they know that 1 in 4 women are raped? [It might be higher]. [It might be lower]...

Also (and this really bothered me) they COMPLETELY forgot that [40% of victims of domestic violence are men] They also seemed to conveniently forget that if prison rape -- which happens predominantly to men -- were counted among rape statistics [it would outnumber every other kind of rape]. Finally, across every single sign, or poster, or statistic, or quote, or face, or t-shirt, or pledge for "These Hands Don't Hurt" the message was consistent: all women are victims, and all men are abusers. The demonization of men as a gender was not only widespread, it was the selling point!

I was extremely disappointed by the campus event in their presentation of misinformation as factual evidence combined with a disgustingly simplistic meme of evil men and helpless women. Unable to contain my frustration, I turn to writing as the only way of somehow getting even an itty bittle of the truth for ya'll out there in the vast webs of cyberspace.

So forgive me, and pardon the rant.



***BONUS***

Additional sources:

[The 1 in 4 myth]
[DV Against Men]
[Misandry in DV Services]
[Female Perpetrators Get Off Easy]


Cheers

28 footnotes:

Kirsty said...

Well there's a physical reason why women can't really rape men, I think you know what I mean. Also 99% of all crimes are committed by men. Yes there are some women who are violent but the large majority are men for hormonal and genetic reasons I suspect.

"My first question was, if the majority of rapes are not reported, then how do they know that 1 in 4 women are raped?" - In all likelihood the rapes were not reported but the women were willing to admit to being raped on an anonymous survey.

Prison rape is an issue, but on the other hand I can't help thinking that at least men who get raped in prison could have done something to prevent it. I.e. not do something to get place in prison in the first place. Most women who get raped do not have the luxury of being able to choose to prevent it.

Finally, no, all women are not victims and no, all men are not abusers, BUT statistically it is more likely that the women is the victim than the man. Probably for the simple reason that men are stronger than women and therefore women are more vulnerable.

Zek J Evets said...

Kirsty,

Your comment is offensive, and alarming in that you make the ludicrous statement:

Well there's a physical reason why women can't really rape men, I think you know what I mean.

You do realize that rape isn't always about sex, right? You do realize that no matter how rare or widespread of a crime IT IS STILL A CRIME right? And yes, a man can have a hard dick that a woman fucks, despite the fact that the man doesn't want to. Men CAN be raped by women. So please, stop being misandric.

99% of all crimes are NOT committed by men. But I'd like to know where you got that laughable statistic. I wonder if you realize that when you say "all crimes" you include domestic violence, prostitution, and child abuse, which are offenses where a large proportion of the criminals are women.

I mean, can you go back and reread your comment, please? I almost didn't publish it because you are so fucking clueless and dismissive. You actually sound like a rape apologist. You could've been the girl from 40 days and 40 nights who raped Josh Harnett's character.

However, this hateful comment is probably the worst:

the large majority are men for hormonal and genetic reasons I suspect.

REALLY!? And what asshole did you pull this from? I'd love to see your sources for that essentialist ish. As I recall, similar arguments are made against Black people, women, and others in an effort to deny them rights, and equal treatment in society.

Seriously Kirsty, don't comment here again. Go back to whatever wannabe fashionista-blog you crawled from and continue to be as ignorant there as you've been here.

Cheers

Kirsty said...

If you don't want what you term as an offensive reply, don't post an offensive post!
You slandered a campaign to promote awareness of sexual assault and domestic violence without thinking of how disrespectful you were being towards women who have been through things like that.
As for the statistic, it's the percentage of prison population which are men.
Perhaps in very rare cases women can rape men... but you'd think that if a man really didn't want to have sex he wouldn't get aroused and would probably be able to push the woman off easily, because yes, although you're trying to put women in the same category as men, there are several important physiological differences between us.
Additionally, I don't know where you live, but in England prostitution is not actually illegal.
And it's not a hateful comment, it's a SIMPLE FACT that testosterone is linked to crime and that men are more likely to commit violent crime because of this.
I don't even know why I bothered to comment on such a misled and pretentious post by a man who obviously has a rather large chip on his shoulder.

P.S. Saying I sound like a rape apologist? Oh gosh, that's not offensive or twisted at ALL is it? Wow, that's way worse than anything I said. You have no idea what has happened in my life to give me these opinions but I don't think you should just slander something which had a good cause at heart. That campaign was not initiated to make men seem evil, it was to stop these kind of horrific things happening.

Good day.

Kirsty said...

Oh and I just checked the latest prison population figures, it's now 95.2% of prison inmates are men (4.8% women). I was referring to figures from a few months ago, because, believe it or not, I don't really keep bang up to date with that kind of information. However, I think 95.2% is high enough to prove my point anyway.

I don't think I've ever come across someone who is more in denial.

Zek J Evets said...

Kirsty,

You're 17. So I'll give you a pass on the reply I almost published which called you a number of other things you seem intent on deserving.

But fact is, you're making the ludicrous claims so that means you need to provide the evidence to back it up. And my 40% stat on DV towards men actually came FROM ENGLAND! Holly mollies! I guess that makes you ignorant AND wrong... about your own country!

Meanwhile, I think maybe in my haste to point out the misandry in your comments, I forgot to point out of MISOGYNY in them. That you think women incapable of rape or abuse is EXACTLY why I found the comments on my campus so repugnant. They paint an infantile and childish picture of women as a group, as if women aren't in any way less capable than men of committing horrendous acts of violence and abuse. Especially when, in fact, we know they are.

See:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/01/24/femaleoffences.html

http://www.menweb.org/panosumm.htm

And also look at the links at the bottom of my post. Many of these statistics and situations are being documented in England too! So please spare me the ish where you tell me you're spouting facts. What you're spouting is hateful nonsense that is demeaning to men primarily, but women as well!

Seriously, grow up. Because if you're offended that I called you WHAT YOU'RE SOUNDING LIKE after the insane things you've said, you need a reality check kiddo, because the world isn't like a fairy tale royal wedding.

And that fact that you attempt to hide behind physiological differences is a grotesque example of why you sound like a rape apologist. Because those are the same reasons that men give for when they plead that they couldn't help but rape a woman.

These will be your final comments allowed on my blog until you learn something. Until then, keep on hating sweety!

Cheers

P.S. More knowledge bombs for your ignorance (again, some from the UK, where your notoriously misinformed ass is from, apparently)

http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-13112865

http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/who-knew-men-suffer-from-psychological-trauma-too/

Remember: in both the US and UK, female criminals get lighter sentences, or just plain get off from all manners of criminal charges at EXTRAORDINARILY higher rates than men, for similar or even worse crimes. Additionally, explanations are always made via sociobiology to root the crimes of men in their genetics, when the reality is far more complicated. These pseudo-scientific arguments are then used to justify why women would NEVER commit crimes, or rarely do. The fact is, however, that they do commit crimes, and that people excuse them at an alarming rate while simultaneously ignoring or punishing their male victims.

So... yeah, as Rafiki once said, "Nope! Wrong again!

Zek J Evets said...

Kirsty,

Sorry, I meant what I said. No more comments here for you. The fact that you're a silly 17 year old girl does not change what you said, or its ignorance and offensiveness.

You obviously know next to nothing about this issue, and are apparently a sexist. Arguing about gender with you would be akin to asking a KKK member for their opinion on President Obama.

As such, please fuck off and have a nice life =)

serpentus said...

Wow, zek. That was pretty mean. I mean, she's just a college girl. Don't curse at her; educate her politely. Be a gentleman.

P.S. Yes, I'm a male that still believes in the code of chivalry.

serpentus said...

"You're 17."

Ad hominem logical fallacy.

"99% of all crimes are NOT committed by men."

I believe she meant to say that the MAJORITY of crimes are committed by men. But that still does not excuse crime.

"in both the US and UK, female criminals get lighter sentences, or just plain get off from all manners of criminal charges at EXTRAORDINARILY higher rates than men, for similar or even worse crimes."

Do you have a reference for that?

RR said...

Zek,

Whoa there partner! It sounds like you lost it there buddy. Kristy respectfully made a number of debatable points which, it seems to me, you overreacted to. You didn’t attack her argument. You attacked her, Thad style. What gives with that? What, exactly, was so offensive about her initial post?

While I am sympathetic to your argument, Kristy did cite facts. The overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by men. Men are significantly stronger, bigger, faster and more aggressive than women on average. Are these points really debatable?

Yes, it is possible for women to rape men, but do women, in fact, rape men (excluding cases of statutory rape, which I don’t believe should be considered rape)? I found this case, so yes, it happens, but instances of this type of rape are so infinitesimally rare that I don’t think the issue is worth considering. You would be on firmer ground by citing the things women do to men that could be considered equivalent to rape, like false paternity. Razib asserts that 3.7% of births are attributed to men who are not the biological fathers of their children. That number has to be significantly higher among blacks.

You wrote:

However, this hateful comment is probably the worst:

the large majority are men for hormonal and genetic reasons I suspect.

REALLY!? And what asshole did you pull this from? I'd love to see your sources for that essentialist ish.


The link between testosterone and violence (especially sexual violence) has been well established:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9F-3Y6PG24-T&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F1995&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1735933114&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0f016cf837420625f58d50aa659cc917&searchtype=a

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/38/4/257.full.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/testost/story.htm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/200907/sex-violence-and-hormones

Here is an interesting argument:

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Castration_of_sex_offenders

You do realize that rape isn't always about sex, right?

Yes, but rape is usually about sex. That is why younger women are at greater risk of sexual assault that older women. What seems to be lost on most people is the reality that human relationships, including sexual relationships, are essentially power struggles.

Testosterone levels have also been implicated in the development of prostate cancer,
which has differential impact on black and white men.

So, why did you ban Kristy when she was behaving herself? Am I to be banned next?

Zek J Evets said...

Serpentus,

Funny enough, I'm actually being NICE because she's 17. I originally wrote comments that were far, far worse.

But her being 17 makes a difference when discussing the issue. If she acts like a child, I will treat her like one.

Despite her intentions (or what you believe her intentions to be) I'm upset about what she SAID, because ultimately that's the reality of what happened.

Also, here are my references for women getting lighter sentences:

http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf

"Do You Receive a Lighter Prison Sentence Because You Are a Woman? An Economic Analysis of Federal Criminal Sentencing Guidelines" from IZA Discussion Paper No. 2870, June 2007

"Racial and Gender Disparities in Prison Sentences: The Effect of District-Level Judicial Demographics" from Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 57-92, January 2005

Zek J Evets said...

RR,

I haven't banned you because you've never stated point blank that a certain crime doesn't happen and then proceeded to blame the victims. Perhaps you may someday? But we'll get to that...

And yes, I did attack with emotion, but also proof, and ridicule. I am quite comfortable mocking people who make ludicrous statements that insult victims of horrible crimes. Just like I'm comfortable mocking racists. And this being my blog, I feel justified in reacting like I did. If you take a dump in my house then don't act surprised if I choose lose my cool.

Anyhoo, I noticed you indulged in the sociobiological track of argument, again, which we've been over a number of times as to its pseudoscience. Hormones can be an influencing factor, but genetics and gender do not predispose certain people to be more violent. These are the same arguments David Duke makes with Steve Sailer to justify racist paternalism towards Black people.

Also, I notice that you actually agree with my point regarding rape not always being about sex (the same goes double for abuse) when you say: "What seems to be lost on most people is the reality that human relationships, including sexual relationships, are essentially power struggles." Rape IS a power struggle, especially since most rape occurs between people who know each other. And this has been documented ad absurdum by Feminists -- I only which they'd admit to it for men too.

Anyhoo after browsing through Kirsty's blog, I refuse to believe she's a racist or sexist, but seeing her make arguments to that effect -- considering it appears that she should know better -- means that her ignorance is offensive for far different reasons than say, yours RR, or Randy's, or Unamused's.

In short, she wasn't behaving herself. She came in with no understanding of the topic, nor apparently having read any of the citations or sources, and made monumentally stupid claims that were incredibly offensive. To you, it may seem like a shoulder shrug, but I didn't feel that way about it.

RR said...

Zek,

I appreciate you not banning me, although, truth be told, I am capable of making remarks as under-informed as Kristy’s. I try not to be under-informed or misinformed, but it happens. In such an instance, I would like to think that you would respond with something similar to “You are WRONG RR and here’s why……”. I would hope you wouldn’t respond with “RR you stupid sap. You are either a product of racist inbreeding or a boot-licking Uncle Tom. In any event, get off my blog. You are banned.” The second hypothetical response would hurt my feelings and, more importantly, undermine my faith in humanity. This is why Kristy’s banning is troubling to me. It seems un-American. I realize this is your blog and as such, it is yours to do with as you see fit. But you seem to be an upstanding sort, so your smacking this young girl around is unseemly. She lives in a country in which voicing certain opinions is against the law (I don’t know what happened to the English, but they seem hopelessly lost). She was seeking safe harbor here, and you turned her out to sea.

You wrote:

In short, she wasn't behaving herself. She came in with no understanding of the topic, nor apparently having read any of the citations or sources, and made monumentally stupid claims that were incredibly offensive.

Why do you consider ignorance offensive? If she is ignorant, why not just enlighten her? I thought part of the purpose of this blog was to serve as a mechanism for you to drop knowledge bombs? Kristy presented you with a nice juicy bombing target but you didn’t pull the trigger. Instead, you became insulted. Bombardiers can’t get insulted. They just gotta bomb:)

Zek J Evets said...

RR,

Smacking her around? Please... banning someone doesn't warrant the language of domestic abuse. I am not akin to a chick puncher for taking her off my blog. Also, her being from England hasn't stopped her free speech. Look at the English tabloids. Plenty of opportunities to say whatever you want.

But see, for me the point where she said men cannot be raped by women was the point where I lost my sh!t, and decided she wasn't going to be publishing comments here again. If Unamused (or yourself) had come here and said that same thing, I would've acted the same way. Why? Because if you can't even recognize the simple existence of the topics I'm discussing, then your ignorance is so complete it'd be like trying to have a conversation in English with someone from another planet.

And to me ignorance IS a sin in our world were knowledge is so easily available to people living in Western nations. Especially when that ignorance is used to dismiss, diminish, and otherwise insult crimes against our fellow human beings. Call me idealistic, but I hold others to a higher standard when it comes to having a conversation/discussion/argument.

Furthermore, it is not my job to enlighten people. Yes, I do enjoy dropping knowledge bombs -- but I'd already done that in the post. She came in and commented without having read the post apparently, because she simply stated claims that were already disproved in my post, along with the sources I provided.

However I will admit that I DID lose my sh!t, and got upset, and emotional, and acted on passion more than on reason. But it was still impassioned reason. I still made an argument, and backed it up with evidence. And to me, admitting my emotions, using them as part of an argument is a good thing. It helps us remember, and show others, why we believe the things we do.

RR said...

Zek,

Since when is the phrase "Smacking her around" limited to domestic abuse? It is you who is being ignorant (and presumptuous) now. That's cool though. I don't think you will ban yourself:)

The UK doesn't have the same free speech protections we have here in the US. A person CAN be prosecuted for making politically incorrect statements over there. Kristy was incorrect in stating that men can't be raped by women. Men can be, and are the victims of female rape, but it is exceedingly rare. In fact, most people would probably agree with Kristy in her assertion, given its rarity, so I think she can be excused for basing her remarks on observed probabilities.

I do not doubt that you would have banned me if I had made a comment similar to Kristy's. This is what is troubling about her banning. All she did was contradict you. You basically banned her for content. You say she should have known better, but we are all ignorant about some things. Hopefully when we make unsupported assertions, someone will be kind enough to correct us. Isn't that what dropping knowledge is all about?

And to me ignorance IS a sin in our world were knowledge is so easily available to people living in Western nations.

So, you are a bigot then. What you are basically saying is that you are prejudiced against relatively less intelligent people, since ignorance is negatively correlated with intelligence. This is the big problem with anti-racists. There is a smug arrogance that accompanies anti-racist rhetoric. The premise seems to be that, since race is a social construct and everyone is essentially the same, if you don't think like an anti-racist, something must be wrong with you, thus you get what you deserve (banning in this case). It is the very low level of tolerance among the chief purveyors of tolerance that is frightening. Let's look at the main points Kristy made in her initial post:

1) Women don't rape men

She was wrong, but there was nothing in your original blog entry or in your citations that asserted the contrary.

2) Men who get raped in prison could have avoided being raped by not being in prison in the first place.

This was very offensive. Her statement is basically analogous to saying that women can have avoid being raped if they don't get drunk. No one deserves to be raped. Certainly there are things we can do to minimize our risk of rape, but there is no defending the crime. Why didn't you just say what I just said? All she did was express and offensive opinion. Again, nothing you presented in your original post specifically contradicted her assertion.

3) Men are more likely to physically abuse women than the reverse.

This is true. Your own statements buttress this point.

She didn't even question the main premise of your post, i.e. having reasonable skepticism regarding the reported frequency of male on female sexual assault promulgated by radical feminists.

Mira said...

I just want to make sure this commenting thing is working now.

RVCBard said...

I have a serious problem with the way Zek framed his idea, but I have an even bigger problem with how two random people showed up to counter the androcentrism with flat-out racism*. The comments right here are exactly why womanism is necessary.

* Y'know, since Black men who are raped in prison "had it coming" since they obviously did something wrong (as though race plays no factor in the criminal justice system). Um. Yeah.

Zek J Evets said...

RVC,

Fair enough. I've read that post before, and I do understand that women's issues are hardly the place to rant about men's issue. However, the event wasn't about women's rights, or rape that happens to women, or domestic violence that happens to women. It was about domestic violence and rape in general. And while they DO have a large proportion of female victims, they also have a large proportion of male victims. And so, inserting (so to speak) men into the conversation isn't about whining, "it happens to men too!" but about acknowledging the truly diverse people who are victims of these crimes.

If this were an event designed solely for women, then I probably would've felt annoyed, but not disappointed. However it wasn't. It was an event called "These Hands Don't Hurt" and they were signing people up to take the pledge, but the overall message was: men taking the pledge pledged not to abuse a woman, and women taking the pledge pledged not to suffer abuse in silence or let others suffer in silence. It was not about a women's issue but about an issue which affects us all. And they failed at that by ignoring an entire half of the population who are victims of these crimes.

As far as Womanism is concerned, I'd say I agree that Womanism is probably better than Feminism, particularly since Womanism is inclusive, and Feminism is exclusive.

Mira,

Your comment went thru fine now. Must've been a temporary glitch.

Zek J Evets said...

RR,

You said, "your smacking this young girl around is unseemly". Maybe you haven't read much on domestic violence, but this is a pretty common phrase, and I find it coincidental that you used it since the topic of my post is about (among other things) domestic violence. But that said... DAMN RIGHT I metaphorically smacked her around. She's almost an adult and needs to take responsibility for the things she says, and that includes the dumb shit she says.

As far as free speech is concerned however I find it hilarious that you'd compare my banning someone from a blog to government censorship. I'm not the government! I can't silence anybody. I can only kick them out of my house so they can yell from across the street ; )

Besides, we have similar laws to the UK regarding free speech. (Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.)

Regarding her banning specifically, if you are troubled by it then stop commenting on my blog? Go find somewhere else to disagree with me and my positions? I don't think you realize that nobody's forcing you to be here, nor was anybody forcing her. It's not some Greek tragedy that she can't come here and comment.

And I find it curious how upset you are over this considering you raised nary a brow when Thaddeus was banned from Abagond's.

So, you are a bigot then

Iunno. Is bigotry against bigots really bigotry? If so, then yes I am a bigot. I am actively prejudiced against ignorant people who make ignorant statements. Note: by ignorance I am not speaking of general ignorance, but ignorance specifically regarding prejudice, discrimination, bigotry, racism, sexism, etc. If someone hasn't read Lord of the Flies, I won't roll my eyes. But if they've never heard of racism in housing and jobs, and admit to being skeptical about it, I'm going to do a lot more than raise my eyebrows.

And unlike the government, I don't HAVE TO tolerate intolerance. Nobody does. It's not a crime to be an asshole, but I don't want to surround myself with, or befriend, or converse with assholes. If you want to blame me for that, then go right ahead.

Why didn't you just say what I just said?

Because I'm not you. Simple enough.

I posted evidence contrary to her comments, as well as my own arguments. Again, I reiterate, I POSTED EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS CONTRARY TO HER COMMENTS. If you or her cannot see this, then I cannot help you other than by pointing my finger towards the links in this thread.

As far as the premise of my post is concerned, her comment seems indicative of an outright bigoted and ignorant mindset that challenged underlying assumptions as well as overt statements I've made. Again, if you disagree then I can't really say much to convince you other than point again to the evidence.

Anyhoo RR, overall I find your defense of this girl to be rather hilarious considering you tend to be against White Knighting almost as much as Obsidian (however, I will call you no White Knight). However, I can quite comfortably say that seems due to your intractable nature, where you argue the opposite position and maintain it stubbornly in the face of evidence to the contrary. I admire it in many ways, but I also acknowledge that it is ultimately a waste of my time, and yours.

Mira said...

I'm glad it's working now. I have no idea what happened.

Now, I must admit this discussion got an unexpected turn. I see Kirsty hit your berserk button, but I'd say you did act childish.

The comment I was trying to post was quite short, actually. Here's what I said: It's all down to logical fallacy - that the fact most rapists are men somehow means most men are rapists.

That being said, the main issue here is not whether men commit 90% of crimes or whatever. Even if 100% of crimes were committed by men, which isn't true, it still doesn't mean most men are violent.

So asking to feel guilty for being a male human being is quite bad. Also is believing there's something inherently twisted or violent or evil in men. Or making young men sign a pledge they would not rape... As if they were predetermined to do so.

PS-I agree there's no excuse for the prison rape. If you say that a guy deserved to be raped because he robbed a bank, then you can easily say a woman deserved to be raped because she got drunk and dressed provocatively. In any case, victim- no matter how bad an individual (s)he may be otherwise- is never guilty of rape. Rapists are guilty of rape.

RR said...

Zek,

I realize that you are not the government and that banning someone from your blog is not equivalent to the government infringing on free speech, but we the people (some of us, anyway) inform the government. Popular sentiment has a habit of finding its way into legislation. Opinions like yours may someday sway law makers into passing hate speech legislation. Is that what you want?

You wrote:

Besides, we have similar laws to the UK regarding free speech.

No, we don’t, actually. The British have hate speech laws that are quite vigorously enforced. One can actually go to jail for publicly expressing distain for a particular group.

http://www.lawthink.co.uk/2011/03/uk-free-speech-vs-us-free-speech-more-speech-not-always-the-solution/

http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2009/06/18/british-hate-speech-duo-will-be-deported-from-the-us/

We have nothing similar to the hate speech laws of Europe generally or the UK specifically. Hate speech is protected under the 1st Amendment. Certain types of speech is circumscribed in the US if the speech is likely to result in lawlessness, but this is NOTHING like the proscriptions on speech the Europeans have adopted.

Is bigotry against bigots really bigotry?

Obviously, yes. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The definition of bigotry doesn’t change with context. It is you who is being ignorant right now, and that’s cool. My point is that we are ALL ignorant about many things. Sometimes we blunder and say non-factual things, as you did with your assertion that the US and the UK have similar free speech laws. I think it is incumbent upon us all to dispense truth (as we see it) to those who are factually deprived.

Maybe some bigotry is good. If one is, say, bigoted against criminals, would it be Ok to be predjudiced against blacks since blacks commit more crime on a percentage basis than other groups? Do you see the slippery slope you are waltzing down?

Of course, there are feminists who would label you a woman-hating bigot for questioning their sexual assault statistics. I would vigorously attack their argument because such an argument would be an assault on reason. But it seems things are a bit different with you. You seem to be more motivated by sentiment than reason.

Regarding her banning specifically, if you are troubled by it then stop commenting on my blog?

You are being hysterical now. I like you. I like your blog. Despite my positive feelings toward you, I will let you know when you are wrong. You are wrong now.

And I find it curious how upset you are over this considering you raised nary a brow when Thaddeus was banned from Abagond's.

Now, I’m upset. You have displayed a tremendous amount of ignorance in the above statement. For your information, I was banned from Abagond’s well before Thad was banned, so I couldn’t raise my objection to his banning. When I found out about it, I went to Thad’s blog and told him that I objected to his banning (among other things). You don’t know what you are talking about. But that is Ok. I am personally tolerant of ignorance.

you tend to be against White Knighting almost as much as Obsidian

I defend those who need defending, sometimes

due to your intractable nature, where you argue the opposite position and maintain it stubbornly in the face of evidence to the contrary

I disagree. I can be swayed by a good argument and/or good data. The problem is that you don’t present very compelling evidence to the contrary. You don’t check your assumptions.

Zek J Evets said...

RR,

There is a functional equivalency regarding hate speech in the UK and our own laws here, which is that in both countries you cannot say whatever you want willy-nilly. Speech is free but regulated. And you can still go to prison for saying (and writing actually, with libel laws) the wrong thing at the wrong time. Whether it's using racial epithets, or yelling fire in a theatre.

And honestly, I'm not totally opposed to the hate speech laws in the UK, mostly because I've been on the receiving end of hate speech far too many times to have much sympathy for it. (Though I wouldn't likely actively campaign against it except in certain settings.)

Do you see the slippery slope you are waltzing down?

Actually I don't. Because unlike stereotyping Black people a priori, my "prejudice" (and I still disagree that holding negative views of bigots is a prejudice, certainly not one akin to racism or sexism) only comes into effect AFTER I've listened to someone's arguments, or witnessed their actions. Mine are a posteriori. I judge -- and judge harshly I'll admit -- after having seen the evidence. Quite a big difference.

Anyways, I apologize regarding Thaddeus, I didn't know the specifics of what happened with you over there, only that you seemed here uncaring about him such that I interpreted that to mean you didn't protest his banning.

But I still believe you are being stubborn and ignoring the good evidence I have provided in favor of intractable with bad evidence, as you have been with other arguments. When I see this, I tend to stop arguing in good faith, either washing my hands of it, or devolving into humor.

My assumptions are rarely checked because I rarely make assumptions regarding my posts. They come from quite a long history of personal experience and A LOT of study. Hence the evidence, hence the logic and reasoning, and hence the passion. But if you're not compelled, then I won't continue trying to compel you. Like I said, that's a waste of our time.

P.S. Neither of links are functioning. Check your URL's and HTML coding.

RR said...

I went to Thad’s blog and told him that I objected to his banning(among other things):

http://omangueblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/regarding-my-tiff-with-menelik-charles.html?showComment=1291777845471#c5784476913111996017

I defend those who seem to need defending, sometimes:

http://zairejungle.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/low-self-esteem-bashing-or-just-keepin-it-real/#comment-702


You wrote:

Whether it's using racial epithets

One will not go to prison for using racial epithets in this country. One could go to prison for the same offense in the UK.

And honestly, I'm not totally opposed to the hate speech laws in the UK, mostly because I've been on the receiving end of hate speech far too many times to have much sympathy for it.

I've been on the receiving end of a few epithets myself. It isn't pleasant, but they are just words, after all. Since you seem to be in favor of restricting certain speech, would you be in favor of foregoing your right to question sexual assault statistics? Many would view your questioning as being misogynist, i.e. hate speech. Do you really want to waltz down that path?

Zek J Evets said...

RR,

One could yell fire in a theatre in the UK and not go to prison. Some would say that's not freedom of speech either. I'm setting up an equivalency, though I acknowledge which I prefer. If you disagree then so it goes.

However, one *can* be punished in this country if one uses racial epithets while working a job in the government.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/northampton-county/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1247285117119070.xml&coll=3

Do you really want to waltz down that path?

Don't misconstrue my point RR. I said I have little sympathy for it nor am opposed to hate speech laws personally, NOT that I'm going to ask we outlaw hate speech. Upon such differences as big as the head of a pin are worlds separated from each other.

And comparing my criticism with actual hate speech (no matter the opinions of some Feminists) is a bit of a Godwin's Law moment, like when Fox News compares certain Liberals to Nazis. My small blog is a far, far cry from a Tea Party rally with signs depicting Obama as Hitler, a witchdoctor, and a monkey. (Something many people regard as actual hate speech.)

Anyways, I think we're getting far from the point which is that being that this is a little blog in the blogosphere that is run by me, as opposed to a public forum, I feel completely justified in making the rules -- even if to you they seem unfair or capricious. To me they are not and if my reasons aren't good enough for you (but they are good enough for me, and others who seem able to follow them) then all I can do is apologize and shrug my shoulders. Maybe this girl will come back with more respectful comments? But probably not. Either way, the issue is kinda getting played out, don't you think?

RR said...

Why aren’t you partial with respect to freedom of speech? This freedom is uniquely American. Why aren’t you adamantly pro-free speech? I don’t get that.

To you, your speech is reasonable. Of course, you regard my speech as racist hate that should be restricted. Many of my feminist friends would regard your essay as a slander against women and would have you blog shuttered on hate speech grounds. The point here is that hate speech is in the eye of the beholder. Virtually any speech can be characterized as hate speech when parsed by a clever rhetorician. This is why “offensive” speech is protected here in the US. This is why, if you care anything about the Constitution or about liberal values, you should be opposed to laws against hate speech.

And comparing my criticism with actual hate speech (no matter the opinions of some Feminists) is a bit of a Godwin's Law moment

You don’t get it. Thad “The Brilliant” often makes a Godwinian equivalent with respect to comments he doesn’t like. You, I gather, are impressed by Thad’s rhetorical flourishes, but resent it when similar flourishes are directed at you.

I do not resent your making the rules on your own blog. I just want to point out the hypocrisy of your stance. You don’t even have a comment policy.

Maybe this girl will come back with more respectful comments? But probably not.

Of course not. How is she to know what you deem “respectful”?

Zek J Evets said...

RR,

When have I ever said this: "you regard my speech as racist hate that should be restricted." When have I ever said that I am against free-speech? That I PERSONALLY feel hate speech is wrong, and wouldn't PERSONALLY be opposed to it being restricted, nor PERSONALLY supportive of slander, libel, yelling fire in a crowed theatre or kike to a Jew on the street has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the issue dude!

You're attempting to get upset about something which I am completely powerless to change. My personal feelings will never translate into political changes because I -- unlike many others -- respect a difference of opinion and allow others to hold whatever beliefs they may.

Just not on my blog. And if my absence of cheering for your comments, or clapping my hands in ecstasy at something offensive that's written or spoken to me is somehow indicative of being anti-free-speech, then you've officially jumped the shark in this conversation.

This is not a zero-sum game, or some kind of battle between pro-speech and anti-speech. You're taking a complex issue and simplifying it into silly dramatics. One CAN BE personally opposed to hate speech and yet still allow it to exist, even if they restrict it from their personal lives. And if you have a problem with that, then you need to check yourself because that is you attempting to infringe upon our rights in the name of your own twisted version of free-speech.

There is nothing hypocritical about this RR, and if you feel that way then let me tell you again that YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE. I don't mean that offensively, just as a statement of fact. My blog; my rules. Nothing hypocritical about that. And longtime readers know my commenting policy, because they actually read my blog on a regular basis and can see how I've been running things.

I feel bad if you're truly upset, but honestly I doubt it. This is the blogosphere, and it's hard to take some random commenter seriously when they get upset at me for running my blog as I see fit after making comments which I've construed as offensive.

Either way, I think I'm kinda done with this line of conversation because I've said all I think really needs be said. If you want to add anything, I suggest you either swallow it, or start a new blog RR because I'm moving on to other topics now, okay?

RR said...

I thought of this post when I read the following story:

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/11/23/women_more_violent/index.html

Here is a snip:

Another fallacy, says Chesney-Lind: the presumption that violent women are a new post-feminist breed, hitting because being "empowered" makes them more like men. In reality, male and female domestic violence tend to emerge from different places, and with different intentions. In the context of heterosexual domestic abuse, she says, "male violence is an expression of power and control over women; men are hitting to control and get things. Women's violence is an expression of frustration and rage and exasperation."

You see, when men hit women,they do it to control women. Men never get frustrated or strike out in rage at women. No. Only women do that. When a woman hits a man, shes not trying to control his, say, sexuality. Of course not.

lifeexplorerdiscovery said...

2 rapes happened at my university within 1 month of each other. 1 was attempted and took place during the daytime in one of the restrooms of a building that is typically busy.

The second one happened at night, outside, on the southern campus.

As far as I am concerned, rapes and other crimes at least where I go to school happen with enough frequency to warrant carrying around pepper spray and hopefully someday a taser.

Zek J Evets said...

lifeexplorediscovery,

That is terrible! At my campus we have a "blue light system" connected to telephones to prevent sexual assaults, robberies, and other crimes against people on campus. They work moderately well, but there are too few of them.

Yet my campus is extremely safe compared to most other colleges, despite being in a major city, and easily accessible by... anyone.

As for my girlfriend, her university campus is pretty bad with regards to sexual assault (on men and women) such that I was worried about her for a time that I tried to buy her mace! She turned me down though. She's a tough cookie =)