Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Feminist/ militantly political girls watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    I don't think we need to "get with the times" as you put it. Just need to be clever with our image. We will never compromise on what we stand for :yes:
    Bigotry, interference with people's personal lives, lack of education, the amalgamation of church and state...

    Anyways, now you're just jumping to another point, and ignoring the rest of my post because you know you were wrong. Unfortunately, like a lot of folk like yourself, facts don't change your mind, they're just an 'inconvenience'.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Barrage of negging by militant misandrinists. I actually support feminism you prats, just not when it impinges on the rights of men and crosses the line to misandry.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Argh, Feminists! Quickly, someone get the deodrant and leg razors.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Failed123)
    Bigotry, interference with people's personal lives, lack of education, the amalgamation of church and state...

    Anyways, now you're just jumping to another point, and ignoring the rest of my post because you know you were wrong. Unfortunately, like a lot of folk like yourself, facts don't change your mind, they're just an 'inconvenience'.
    Hate much? Lack of education, I would hardly call people like **** Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz uneducated. As for republican followers, I am studying dentistry, which again is hardly crap.

    Ironically, the democrats are causing most interference and regulaton in peoples' lives, take for example the new reforms which will make it harder for Americans to own bigger cars, the nationalisation of health care, increase in tax, loss of jobs for working class, I would say these are terrible ideas. When we take into account foreign policy it makes the situation alot worse, during Clinton's presidency, there were several terrorist attacks on US interests and the failed 1993 attack on the World trade center. We saw NO ACTION from the democrats.

    The republicans value stability within america and abroad. As Cheney said, the US provides global leadership in freedom, democracy and so on.

    The republican party upholds the values on which this nation was built on, values of the forefathers and the constitution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The one thing I hate is when commoners - men or women - get ideas above their station
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Really? I find them irritating. Or at least more of a potential sparring partner than a sexual partner :P:

    I vastly prefer subservient girls who know their place, and look up to men to protect and look after them - my girlfriend is very much like that, and whilst completely independent and strong, she loves having a guy to look after her, and to feel overpowered. She agrees on a number of issues that women shouldnt really if they want to be seen as equals, such as the pay between men and women being equal at wimbledon when it shouldnt, as the women work less for it. I like being the one to protect her and be all dominant (I think some of this comes from her sexual tastes anyway, shes very much into being a submissive - see "The Secretary" without the piss
    All that said, we have a pretty even relationship when it comes to making decisions, and we treat each other well. Note that there is a difference between being dominant in a relationship to being a tyrant. It must be working anyway, as we are more deeply in love than I could have believed possible.

    Oh well
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    Did you read what I wrote? Men aren't presumed guilty, women are presumed to be liars - that's why only SIX PERCENT OF MEN ARE CONVICTED. Her word isn't presumed true NINETY FOUR PERCENT OF THE TIME. It's very VERY VERY EASY for a man to absolve himself of a rape accusation. Everyone questions it, the police, the lawyers, the juries. Convictions rates are TINY. The complete opposite of what you're saying is true.
    You're quite hilariously wrong. One of the central messages of femininist battle cries in the 1970s was "'All men are rapists". Not many people shared this ridiculous view, but it did express an animosity towards men that was widely shared and has taken a firm hold in mass culture. Since then there has been a climate of increasing misandry. The 2002 home secretary's White Paper on sexual offences shows as much; the determination to convict more date rapists, presumably to appease our powerful feminist lobby, has led to the violation of two key principles of British criminal law; the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof, in every way, should be upon the prosecution. Traditionally, as everyone knows, it is far better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be convicted. Unfortunately, in modern times, the feminist lobby has changed that. So now a man will be presumed guilty until he can prove himself innocent, and under the most imponderable of circumstances.
    There isn't as much support, but there aren't as many victims, so. There is support proportional to the number of victims.
    19% of domestic violence victims are male, that's a pretty large number of males in Britain. Where are the male refuges? Women's refuges should be told to help male domestic violence victims or lose their funding, otherwise their claim of "equality" is totally shot to hell.
    Two straight women kissing as a turn on for men, isn't genuine lesbianism. Does it really raise hundreds of complaints? Queer as folk was a pretty big hit.
    Did I say it was? But it's still a pretty large indication of the climate of opinion. Two women kissing, no complaints. Two men kissing, a plethora of national debates and complaints.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    You're quite hilariously wrong. One of the central messages of femininist battle cries in the 1970s was "'All men are rapists". Not many people shared this ridiculous view, but it did express an animosity towards men that was widely shared and has taken a firm hold in mass culture. Since then there has been a climate of increasing misandry. The 2002 home secretary's White Paper on sexual offences shows as much; the determination to convict more date rapists, presumably to appease our powerful feminist lobby, has led to the violation of two key principles of British criminal law; the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof, in every way, should be upon the prosecution. Traditionally, as everyone knows, it is far better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be convicted. Unfortunately, in modern times, the feminist lobby has changed that. So now a man will be presumed guilty until he can prove himself innocent, and under the most imponderable of circumstances.
    Everything that I said was completely true - do you think I'm just making up these statistics for the fun of it? By "all men are rapists", I assume you're talking about Marilyn French? Have you read past that sound bite? that phrase has nothing to do rape meaning forced sex, you are completely misunderstanding it. gr

    it's better for a guilty man to go free than convict an innocent one - but to let NINETY-FOUR PERCENT of accused rapists free is wrong, that's such an extreme percentage. Up to 95% of rapes are estimated to go unreported, of the ones who are reported - a third of them aren't recorded by police, and then only a fifth of those who are recorded manage to reach trial! Raping a woman in this country RARELY results in jail sentence - MOST rapists get away with it. That isn't acceptable.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ma...onvictions-low
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6314445.stm

    19% of domestic violence victims are male, that's a pretty large number of males in Britain. Where are the male refuges? Women's refuges should be told to help male domestic violence victims or lose their funding, otherwise their claim of "equality" is totally shot to hell.
    Women's refuges, for fairly obvious reasons, could not take in male victims of domestic violence. I wonder if you have any idea what percentage of that 19% need to be housed in refuges? There are places of refuge for male victims of domestic violence.

    Did I say it was? But it's still a pretty large indication of the climate of opinion. Two women kissing, no complaints. Two men kissing, a plethora of national debates and complaints.
    Clearly there isn't a plethora of national debates or complaints, since a programme like Queer as Folk was a massive hit, clearly the people who watched and enjoyed it massively outweighed the number of complaints it received - so if you're using that as a measure of the 'climate of opinion', on-screen gay relationships come off quite well. Anna Friel had an on-screen lesbian kiss in Brookside over a decade ago, and it was brought up when she was on Jonathon Ross earlier this year, clearly it does have an impact. This is a silly and petty point anyway, for which which you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimdawg)
    I think its really hot when a reasonable or more looking girl has some militant political belief eg. feminism, very right wing or marxist, etc.

    For example, I think that the allure of Sarah Palin was greatly helped by her right-wing, horrible beliefs, she's so hot :o:

    I think I just shun the traditional idea of a subservient female, I like my women fiesty and opinionated lol.
    I'm intrigued.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    Everything that I said was completely true - do you think I'm just making up these statistics for the fun of it? By "all men are rapists", I assume you're talking about Marilyn French? Have you read past that sound bite? that phrase has nothing to do rape meaning forced sex, you are completely misunderstanding it. gr
    I'm aware of that, but at the time the radical wing of the feminists took it out of context and placed it central to their man-hating campaign. Amongst such idiots, male penetrative intercourse with a woman was an act of rape in itself; violating a woman's sovereign space, by a male oppressor. Thus, by default, all men are rapists. They also believed that all men are potential rapists, but so too are women. I'm not saying all women believed this, but this is, often, what "feminism" accounts to.

    i
    t's better for a guilty man to go free than convict an innocent one - but to let NINETY-FOUR PERCENT of accused rapists free is wrong, that's such an extreme percentage. Up to 95% of rapes are estimated to go unreported, of the ones who are reported - a third of them aren't recorded by police, and then only a fifth of those who are recorded manage to reach trial! Raping a woman in this country RARELY results in jail sentence - MOST rapists get away with it. That isn't acceptable.
    Maybe because they were actually innocent, or there wasn't enough proof? We can't just put people away because they might have raped. As I've said, the burden of proof is upon the prosector, and if there isn't concrete evidence then they can, and should, go free. You say most rapists get away, what evidence do you have for this? How do you know that these 94% are actually guilty?
    Women's refuges, for fairly obvious reasons, could not take in male victims of domestic violence. I wonder if you have any idea what percentage of that 19% need to be housed in refuges? There are places of refuge for male victims of domestic violence.
    Much of society do not take male victims seriously, and perpetuate the myth that women are being attacked in every other home, with men as the main culprits for violent attacks. And continually quoting low inaccurate figures for men. The figure may be lower than in reality, too, for men might feel they are not "real men" if they admit to being physically, or emotionally, abused by a woman. This is also society's recent bias towards women, and the perpetuated image that only women can be abused. Men have exactly the same rights as women to be safe in their own homes. All statutory services (including refuges) have a duty to provide services to all, whatever their gender. Men are protected by exactly the same laws as women.
    Clearly there isn't a plethora of national debates or complaints, since a programme like Queer as Folk was a massive hit, clearly the people who watched and enjoyed it massively outweighed the number of complaints it received - so if you're using that as a measure of the 'climate of opinion', on-screen gay relationships come off quite well. Anna Friel had an on-screen lesbian kiss in Brookside over a decade ago, and it was brought up when she was on Jonathon Ross earlier this year, clearly it does have an impact. This is a silly and petty point anyway, for which which you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim with.
    So you're basing your claims upon one show? This is really a moot-point that I don't really want to go into any further, but there is a clear bias against gay men in the media as opposed to gay females.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    I'm aware of that, but at the time the radical wing of the feminists took it out of context and placed it central to their man-hating campaign. Amongst such idiots, male penetrative intercourse with a woman was an act of rape in itself; violating a woman's sovereign space, by a male oppressor. Thus, by default, all men are rapists. They also believed that all men are potential rapists, but so too are women. I'm not saying all women believed this, but this is, often, what "feminism" accounts to.
    OFTEN? I wouldn't say that OFTEN feminists suggest that every act of sex is an act of rape. I wouldn't take what the fringe might say and use it as an excuse to try and tarnish the rest.

    Maybe because they were actually innocent, or there wasn't enough proof? We can't just put people away because they might have raped. As I've said, the burden of proof is upon the prosector, and if there isn't concrete evidence then they can, and should, go free. You say most rapists get away, what evidence do you have for this? How do you know that these 94% are actually guilty?
    So, 94% of women are crying rape? 34% of all violent crimes reported lead to a conviction at trial - SIX percent of accused rapists are convicted at trial. Even if not all of the men accused are guilty (I'm certain there's a minority who aren't), there is such a massive discrepancy between rape conviction rates and conviction rates for every other crime.

    There is often a lack of evidence, and that has to do with police ineptitude at tackling rape cases. A lot of the time women are too afraid, ashamed or embarrassed to report their attack to the police, because the police mistreat rape victims - I've already linked to story which describes the findings of a government report which found that poor police treatment of victims, and juries who blame women for their own rapes are the reason for this outstandingly low conviction rate.

    I don't really understand what's your problem with this idea - all I'm saying is, we need to make sure that men who rape are sent to jail for their crimes - at the moment that ISN'T happening. What could anyone's problem possibly be with this? That doesn't mean I would throw everyone who was accused of rape into jail without due process, like you seem to be suggesting that I am, but that we need to make sure that police officers and healthcare workers are competent and unbiased towards the victims, that victims are made to feel safe and that the process of reporting a rape is as untraumatic as possible. Also that courts and juries are vigilant and don't blame the victim for being raped if she had been flirting with her rapist, or drunk.

    Much of society do not take male victims seriously, and perpetuate the myth that women are being attacked in every other home, with men as the main culprits for violent attacks. And continually quoting low inaccurate figures for men. The figure may be lower than in reality, too, for men might feel they are not "real men" if they admit to being physically, or emotionally, abused by a woman. This is also society's recent bias towards women, and the perpetuated image that only women can be abused. Men have exactly the same rights as women to be safe in their own homes. All statutory services (including refuges) have a duty to provide services to all, whatever their gender. Men are protected by exactly the same laws as women.
    One in three women will suffer from domestic abuse at some point in their lives, so, that's not quite ever other home - but not that far off it.

    Women's refuges, which house women who have been severely beaten and abused by their partners should not also house male victims - just like a female rape victim shouldn't have to be examined by a male nurse or doctor - it could feel unsafe or traumatic in an environment which is supposed to be protective. Services should be made available to men, absolutely, but they should also be in proportion with the demand. If the need for these service is outstripping the availability of them, then obviously that's wrong and should be fixed, but however way you look at it, women are the definite majority when it comes to abuse victims so it's unsurprising that there are more women's shelters than shelters for men.

    So you're basing your claims upon one show? This is really a moot-point that I don't really want to go into any further, but there is a clear bias against gay men in the media as opposed to gay females.
    And you're basing your claim on what? Absolutely nothing. There isn't a bias at all, this is a ridiculous point.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    OFTEN? I wouldn't say that OFTEN feminists suggest that every act of sex is an act of rape. I wouldn't take what the fringe might say and use it as an excuse to try and tarnish the rest.
    We've wondered off point, somewhat. I was merely answering your point.
    So, 94% of women are crying rape? 34% of all violent crimes reported lead to a conviction at trial - SIX percent of accused rapists are convicted at trial. Even if not all of the men accused are guilty (I'm certain there's a minority who aren't), there is such a massive discrepancy between rape conviction rates and conviction rates for every other crime.
    Well, if 94% of men go free, then I can only assume that they are, in fact, innocent. You can't convict somebody with no evidence, and that's what the prosecutors lack, and until I see any concrete evidence on the contrary let's presume innocence, not guilt.
    There is often a lack of evidence, and that has to do with police ineptitude at tackling rape cases. A lot of the time women are too afraid, ashamed or embarrassed to report their attack to the police, because the police mistreat rape victims - I've already linked to story which describes the findings of a government report which found that poor police treatment of victims, and juries who blame women for their own rapes are the reason for this outstandingly low conviction rate.

    I don't really understand what's your problem with this idea - all I'm saying is, we need to make sure that men who rape are sent to jail for their crimes - at the moment that ISN'T happening. What could anyone's problem possibly be with this? That doesn't mean I would throw everyone who was accused of rape into jail without due process, like you seem to be suggesting that I am, but that we need to make sure that police officers and healthcare workers are competent and unbiased towards the victims, that victims are made to feel safe and that the process of reporting a rape is as untraumatic as possible. Also that courts and juries are vigilant and don't blame the victim for being raped if she had been flirting with her rapist, or drunk.
    No one could for a moment believe that crimes should go unpunished, and I'm not saying rapists should go free. However, we begin life as innocent, unaware infants. Therefore, innocence, as I've said, has to be presumed before guilt. Also, ask yourself why is it that far more baby boys than baby girls will grow to become criminals. There has been pressure by feminists for many years to shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the defendant. This would make rape a unique crime, going against all historic legal philosophy: the man would be presumed guilty unless he could prove in court that he received consent from the woman to engage in sexual intercourse. Also, the woman's name and details are kept private from the media, whereas the defendant's are not, and, moreover, he is usually branded guilty by the media even before the verdict. Would you agree with this?
    One in three women will suffer from domestic abuse at some point in their lives, so, that's not quite ever other home - but not that far off it.
    Women can also suffer domestic abuse from person's others than men.
    Women's refuges, which house women who have been severely beaten and abused by their partners should not also house male victims - just like a female rape victim shouldn't have to be examined by a male nurse or doctor - it could feel unsafe or traumatic in an environment which is supposed to be protective. Services should be made available to men, absolutely, but they should also be in proportion with the demand. If the need for these service is outstripping the availability of them, then obviously that's wrong and should be fixed, but however way you look at it, women are the definite majority when it comes to abuse victims so it's unsurprising that there are more women's shelters than shelters for men.
    Yes, yes, granted. But still, there isn't enough support given to male domestic violence victims, paticularly not to the quality, and extent, of which is given to female victims.
    And you're basing your claim on what? Absolutely nothing. There isn't a bias at all, this is a ridiculous point.
    I'm basing my claim on the experiences I grew up with, and the general climate of opinion that I've noted.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)

    Well, if 94% of men go free, then I can only assume that they are, in fact, innocent. You can't convict somebody with no evidence, and that's what the prosecutors lack, and until I see any concrete evidence on the contrary let's presume innocence, not guilt.
    Or, you could accept that guilty men do indeed go free, and that is wrong and should stop. Just accepting the fact that 94% of accused rapists go free, ignoring the evidence that suggests that the reason for this is police and court mismanagement, is to belittle rape victims.

    You're being unrealistic, 94% of men accused of rape aren't going to be innocent - the fact that 94% of men accused of rape go free, suggests that a significant percentage of rapists are walking free - that doesn't disturb you? that doesn't strike you as wrong and unfair? That's before considering the fact that majority of rapes go unreported.

    Rape victims are walking free, rape victims are going without justice - instead of assuming that the courts are infallible, we should recognise the faults in the system and work to correct them. That doesn't HAVE to mean ignoring due process, like you're convinced it does.

    No one could for a moment believe that crimes should go unpunished, and I'm not saying rapists should go free. However, we begin life as innocent, unaware infants. Therefore, innocence, as I've said, has to be presumed before guilt. Also, ask yourself why is it that far more baby boys than baby girls will grow to become criminals. There has been pressure by feminists for many years to shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the defendant. This would make rape a unique crime, going against all historic legal philosophy: the man would be presumed guilty unless he could prove in court that he received consent from the woman to engage in sexual intercourse. Also, the woman's name and details are kept private from the media, whereas the defendant's are not, and, moreover, he is usually branded guilty by the media even before the verdict. Would you agree with this?
    Oh, for god's sake, you've imagined this "let's move the burden of proof" nonsense - no-one is suggesting that apart from you. Government reports have highlighted why so many men go free, it isn't because they're all innocent and women are almost universally lying, it's due to police and healthcare workers mismanagement and mistreatment of the victim - that has to change. More rapists need to be convicted, assuming that 94% of women who report being raped aren't lying (it would be rather horrendous to suggest they were), most rapists are getting way with rape. This isn't acceptable. It has to change.

    Yes, I absolutely agree with keeping rape victim's details private, who wouldn't? I don't agree with releasing information on the defendant unless necessary to aid the investigation, and, tbh, I can't remember the last time I heard about a rape in the media - except for in the cases of serial rapists.

    Yes, yes, granted. But still, there isn't enough support given to male domestic violence victims, paticularly not to the quality, and extent, of which is given to female victims.
    Obviously not to the same extent, since there are fewer male victims, there should be enough support given to each group based on the amount of need. We shouldn't build as many male shelters as there are female shelters, if 90% are just going to sit empty.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Do you have any more figures about rape cases. It would be interesting to know why only 6% result in convictions. Are the cases thrown out by the CPS, charges dropped, or the defendants found not guilty? I knew the conviction rate for rape was low but 6% is frankly shocking.

    I think this idea is not going to popular but i will put it out there anyway. Maybe like murder in the US you could have different degrees of rape. I know rape is rape, but rape cases tend to be very complicated and maybe differentiating between them could help boost the conviction rate.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 26, 2009
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.