It’s a difficult balance to strike, but there’s not much argument to be had against making it easier for women to report offenders and be taken seriously. It needs sorting out at both ends.
#MeToo - is it just different for men and women?
- Thread starter Craterloads
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
They might ask you what you were doing in a school at your age, i would stay quiet.
When I was much younger obviously, it's not like I hang out at schools or anything dubious like that.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you that false accusations of rape are a serious issue.
However, the two things aren't mutually exclusive — you can be against false accusations of rape and be for more genuine rape/harassment cases being brought forward.
I'm glad you clarified. It was needed.When I was much younger obviously, it's not like I hang out at schools or anything dubious like that.
I think the definition of rape is pretty well understood, my problem is that it seems to be open season re: "sexual harassment", certainly in the media where currently it seems "he looked at me in a funny way" is good enough proof to put the boot in!
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,179
- Location
- Rollergirl
If you go back to my original comment you'll see that I didn't say anything about the two being mutually exclusive. The point being made was that a case that ends in no conviction has by it's very process cleared an innocent man. It shouldn't be seen as failing a victim.
You're original comment (that I responded to) was this:
In response to this:
You suggested that the "attitude" of victims feeling unable to come forward somehow leads to innocent people being convicted of crimes they didn't commit. It makes no sense.
If you're trying (unsuccessfully) to argue that the increase in women speaking out about genuine rape cases has led to an increase in false accusations then fair enough, we can discuss that, but if that is the point you're trying to make you're not doing a very good job of it.
Sure, go right ahead. Feel free to be facetious with them as well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,179
- Location
- Rollergirl
@Irish_Tom I'm not going to be quoting a hundred posts. The point being made is clear; we should not automatically believe an accusation until it is proved in court. It makes no difference who is being accused or how "powerful" they are.
I agree 100% with that statement but that's not what you originally said.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,179
- Location
- Rollergirl
@Irish_Tom
He said:
To which I said:
Then he said:
The conversation is really clear, I don't know why you're struggling with it. He thinks false convictions are insignificant, I disagree with him.
I've seen this attitude a lot, and it's not something I agree with. I posted links to the current scandal with police withholding evidence in order to get a conviction, and I believe that the two are related. It's all about making sure the guy doesn't get off, but we tend to forget that there's a legal process and unlike good old Mother Teresa there are actually vindictive women out there who will lie through their teeth.
He said:
To which I said:
Then he said:
The conversation is really clear, I don't know why you're struggling with it. He thinks false convictions are insignificant, I disagree with him.
I've seen this attitude a lot, and it's not something I agree with. I posted links to the current scandal with police withholding evidence in order to get a conviction, and I believe that the two are related. It's all about making sure the guy doesn't get off, but we tend to forget that there's a legal process and unlike good old Mother Teresa there are actually vindictive women out there who will lie through their teeth.
No. Reading comprehension? He said that the number of false accusations pale into insignificance compared to the number of unreported crimes. He’s absolutely right - it’s unarguable. There are vastly more badly handled reports than false accusations. The point you’re arguing is the impact of the false accusations compared to the impact of the ignored reports. That’s a completely different angle on things, and not one that OMS has really commented on.
So then the question is... how do you weigh the impact of one man falsely accused of rape versus one woman raped and ignored or unable to come forward?
I was felt up a few times on night outs by random women (usually older) who I had no interest in. It was unconformable, usually met with humour as a defence mechanism and forgotten about by the next day.
I sympathise with anyone who has had this happen and suffered lasting effects, for me I don't think it had any impact. At the time it happened it was the late 90s early 00s so with no YouTube or social media I had nobody to put it into any kind of context. If I had been bombarded with messages from society that I had been violated I think it would have felt far more negative.
I can only give my experience as a male and I don't know how it would have been if I were a woman. But I do worry that younger generations will make minor events carry a far more negative impact that will affect their life. Nobody should be made to feel uncountable or have their body violated but you have to be careful not to add your own weight and baggage to these things.
I sympathise with anyone who has had this happen and suffered lasting effects, for me I don't think it had any impact. At the time it happened it was the late 90s early 00s so with no YouTube or social media I had nobody to put it into any kind of context. If I had been bombarded with messages from society that I had been violated I think it would have felt far more negative.
I can only give my experience as a male and I don't know how it would have been if I were a woman. But I do worry that younger generations will make minor events carry a far more negative impact that will affect their life. Nobody should be made to feel uncountable or have their body violated but you have to be careful not to add your own weight and baggage to these things.
Last edited:
Thank you, I thought I was going mad.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,072
- Location
- Shepley
I think everyone else has covered off the other stuff but, coming back to this, no conviction does not mean the accused was innocent. No conviction means there was not sufficient evidence to convict the accused, anything beyond that is not within the remit of the court. From the other side, it doesn’t mean we should discredit the accusers if a conviction is not obtained. It’s wholly possible to make a true accusation which cannot be proven in the courts.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,179
- Location
- Rollergirl
I strongly disagree with your opinion, and I'm not sure what more I can add to the conversation at this point.
Going back to my original comment to you, I repeat: It's attitudes like yours that see innocent people ruined. And to be perfectly honest, I don't see the point in the legal system if you're going to see the accused as perpetually guilty regardless of legal outcome.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,634
The passage you quoted/responded to wasn't an opinion, that is a statement of fact...
Just because you aren't found guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it.
Equally if you are found guilty it doesn't mean you did.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,072
- Location
- Shepley
It's not an opinion, I feel like you’re letting emotion get in the way of logic here. The accused is not perpetually guilty any more than the accuser is perpetually lying.
Courts find people guilty or not guilty based on an established level of probability, not guilty or innocent based on 100% certainty.