I think this question is always present in every thread, not just the one in question. To that I think thus far (I’m mostly current as of yesterday afternoon) the answer is no.
The problem is not that they are trolls. The problem is that they are sincere.
That’s pretty much the definition of rape culture.
The mod’s wishes in this case is that a thread about the moderation of Kavanaugh threads in elections be allowed to discuss the moderation of Kavanaugh threads in elections. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request.
You aren’t being silenced. If you want to discuss the broader topic of misogyny on the board, feel free to start a new thread about it. Just don’t bury this thread in that much larger topic.
That’s a defensible position, although not one with which I agree.
Especially not the part about her being at fault. Because I think there is a useful distinction between “it was her fault” and “15 year old girls should not be sneaking off to parties where no adults are present and there is drinking”. And ISTM that the two tend to be conflated.
Regards,
Shodan
Should saying “I don’t believe her” make the poster who says it subject to Warnings and bans?
Regards,
Shodan
Nope.
A poster who can twist my words into that preztel, on the other hand…
This is not what I (or anyone else, for that matter) is complaining about.
It’s the mod’s call, but I would be happy with a note that said something like: “Please tone things down so that you are not accusing women or girls from being responsible for being the victim of a sexual assault just because they wore the wrong clothes or were in the wrong place. That’s being a jerk and could be considered trolling”. I don’t think the poster in question literally said “it was her fault”, but he came pretty close.
You are correct that it is the mods’ call. Do you think (I do, in case it’s not clear) that there is any useful distinction between “she was in the wrong place” and misogyny/rape culture? ISTM that a fifteen year old girl at a house party with no adults and where there is drinking is in the wrong place.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s fair; I’m not going to defend lying as an adult about something you did when you were younger- that does show the sort of persistent and present character flaw that we should all be concerned about, not whatever it was that they did at 16. And that particular nuance seems to be drifting aimlessly as well.
It’s also worth noting that many Dopers are quick to jump to the wrong conclusion when they read things.
Take for example my comments about Ford’s peer group and their fake IDs, underage drinking, and partying with boys in homes where the adults were away. The article that mentioned this behavior also noted that the boys were well-known to become sexually aggressive on these occasions. This had become something of a burden the girls had to contend with.
I brought all this up by way of indicating that it shouldn’t have come as a shock to Ford that a boy would therefore come on to her this way. I even stated this in so many words, and on more than one occasion.
But instead of acknowledging the true meaning of what I said, my comments were either deliberately or reflexively misconstrued to mean that I was blaming Ford for the fact she was allegedly attacked.
There is a significant difference between saying that a person shouldn’t logically be surprised to find out drunken guys were coming onto her under such circumstances vs. saying she was responsible for the fact they did.
In other words, “shock” and “responsible for” are two completely different things.
IMO, there is way too much of this behavior on the board, where something said in one context is alleged to be saying something inflammatory in a different context, with such misconstruing then used to vilify the poster in question, or, on occasion, to advocate for his moderation or banning.
The fact is that it’s almost impossible for a poster going against the grain here to get a point across in the way he or she means it, and I believe this should be taken into account when the board’s moderators and administrators are considering what type of speech should be allowed or how the board is to be run.
Thanks for providing such a clear example of rape culture. Attempted rape is not a “come on”.
Yeah, this sort of thing is actually what we’re talking about–this and the other parts where you talk about how it’s no big deal for a dude to do what Kavanaugh is accused of doing, and that women who are traumatized by what Kavanaugh is accused of doing are weak. I’d be all about such posts getting warnings.
Note that I said “a” boy, not “that” boy. The meaning was that she shouldn’t have been shocked that guys would be there who would be coming on strong sexually. Your comment is pretty much a perfect example of how comments get twisted around here.
But she didn’t complain about a come on. She complained about an attempted rape. You’re the one who called it a come on, which is a prime example of rape culture.
Shodan, do you understand the difference between what you said we were complaining about and what Starving Artist has said both in this thread and others? Because that’s what actually bothers us.
My layman’s understanding is that the argument you are making is one that is part of “rape culture” as popularly defined. I’m not saying you should feel like a bad person about that; just recognize what the effects of this argument are, and how it doesn’t help solve the problem, but makes it worse.
I’m going to try a clumsy analogy here to demonstrate how offensive this argument is; maybe it works. First, premises:
-
A few dozen people died in Texas last year because of Hurricane Harvey; many more were injured – physically, financially, emotionally, whatever.
-
There is a tenuous causal relationship between human-caused climate change and the damage caused by hurricanes. By that I mean: there seems to be a plausible, logical, evidence-based argument that human activity has made some hurricanes more destructive. (If you want to argue the climate change-> worse hurricanes point, imagine that I’m talking about the poor city planning choices Houston made that contributed to flooding there, and adjust the rest of the analogy accordingly.)
-
Now, any particular hurricane can’t be demonstrated to have been aggravated in this way. So we don’t know if Harvey was made worse by it or not.
-
A major source of greenhouse gas emissions is the production of meat for human consumption. (Not just cow farts.)
Okay, so imagine that PETA makes the argument that the residents of Houston deserve the damage brought upon them by Harvey, because so many of those residents eat meat. Thereby… (connect the dots).
Okay, let’s make that less obnoxious. Let’s say they just shouldn’t have been surprised that Harvey was so destructive, because …
My analogy’s clumsy, as I said; but I hope you can at least see why “deserved it” or even “should’ve known better” arguments are regarded as deeply offensive and unhelpful by many people. Not just women or survivors of sexual assault.
Not only are they tenuously connected to the specific act of violence – they ignore the larger causes of that act of violence.
“So destructive”? No, a hurricane is no big deal. There are winds like that all the time, and how can they live on the coast and not expect a little breeze now and then? They shouldn’t be surprised at a stiff ocean breeze.
Yeah, your description of an event where someone was allegedly yanked out of a hallway, thrown onto a bed, jumped onto, and where the attacker then stifled her screams and tried to undress her–your description of this event as “coming on strong sexually” is the sort of talk that IMO deserves a warning.