About as misogynist a post as I have ever seen on CC.
W-O-W
Guess he didn’t read the texts or have any knowledge of the “senior salute” competition.
@HarvestMoon1 - I thought that poster was a female, actually. But it makes more sense if he’s a 14yo male I guess. I sure hope there is parenting going on to help correct some of those impressions.
I’m actually glad that whoever it was wrote down those ugly and illogical thoughts. We need to be reminded that this is still out there - poisoning the well, so to speak. I guess those freshman seminars on consent should have started a lot earlier!
I too am speechless. Without speech. Gobsmacked.
ETA: And this is the edited version!!
The logic in your post fails in several areas. Right off the top, in trying to refute the statement “As LucieTheLakie noted, an increase in reporting does not mean an increase in incidence of rape”, you said:
That is exactly backwards and completely supports @LucieTheLakie 's point. If before ladies were required to keep quiet about everything and didn’t report out of shame or other social issues, then there might have been only 10 reports for every 100 rapes per year. So clearly now, when that stigma is less prevalent, those same 100 rapes might get reported 50% of the time rather than 10%. The number of rapes didn’t go up, but the number of reports did. You couldn’t have gotten ir more wrong. A 6th grader could pass that logic test. Now that doesn’t mean that there are not 125 rapes occurring in that same year, but that is a completely separate issue than reporting rates. You would have to determine the rate of reporting in each era before you could conclude that rapes had increased, but there is virtually no doubt that women are more likely to report rapes today than they would have 40 years ago. There is still a long way to go, but that is completely without doubt and is a very significant factor.
Then you replied to “I should note that in all countries where sexuality is legislated as @Derivativeofx seems to imply it should be, there are gross human rights violations, governmental violence, and things we would all call “cruel and unusual” (e.g. Honor killings, Stonings of raped women, etc.)” with the following:
Aside from the point that I am not sure how this adds anything to your argument, attacking the character and/or intentions of a person that is making arguments that do not agree with yours is not a logical debate point in your favor. People may not be perfect, but each grouping of people within defined sovereign borders makes laws and judgements based on whatever factors they deem appropriate for their society. It isn’t her saying she knows the right thing to do for everyone, although there are issues where most of the world agrees on certain issues, yet still refrains from tell other cultures they cannot do that within their own borders. Every now and then there are things that cross even that line, and action is taken by sanction or force. But if you continue to simply try and justify your points by attacking others, you are not making your case at all.
Finally to state
That is a completely absurd statement as demonstrated by everything that has happened in this country until maybe 5 years ago, and even today the facts on the ground completely refute that what you are saying is true. It is just an outrageous statement, as the result of many lawsuits recently filed by women demonstrating Title IX violations and admissions by colleges that they tried to get women to “just stay quiet” about being raped clearly demonstrates. The fact that men have also been wronged by shameful lack of procedures and due process, as well as outrageous assumptions in the other direction, just shows how ill equipped colleges are to handle these issues, and how hard they are to know the truth about in many cases. That last, however, doesn’t in any way justify assuming the kinds of things you have about women.
@fallenchemist I of course agree with, and am grateful for your post. However I interpreted the “ladies used to hide everything” as referring to clothing - and thus implying that women in long skirts would be less likely to be assaulted.
I.e. Also untrue but less willfully illogical.
Absolutely, and if you read between the lines you can find less offensive versions of these sentiments even on this forum. Despite the ugliness of the last few lines of the “unmoderated” post, equally offensive was his response to another poster of “Who do you think you are?” when she disagreed with him.
And of course the saddest thing is that this is a 14 year old boy who one would hope was being raised with a more enlightened view of women.
It appears @Derivativeofx is a high school senior:
I wonder if he also would like to return to those good old days when Africans were kidnapped from their home countries and enslaved here in the United States, or American CITIZENS of Japanese descent were sent to internment camps?
Clearly, the US was much better off before women got the vote!
Honestly, I believe this student is a product of his upbringing, and the thought that he might have a sister is terrifying to me. I wonder if he thinks female genital mutilation is a smart practice too?
Oh, and for what it’s worth, @Derivativeofx, given your broken syntax, it’s not clear that you’re a US citizen at all, so claiming to be “African American” is highly suspect.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. That could be an interpretation for sure, but of course that just shows he understands nothing about the psychology of a rapist. As for the subject he was trying to address of more reports means there are more rapes, my statement stands anyway. It has been definitively established that women report rape at a far higher rate than in the past, despite the many issues they know might be involved. So there may or may not be more rapes per capita than in the past. I should have mentioned the following, which seems very relevant to that topic as well as it makes for an easy to understand example. And I just had the conversation!
I was having dinner at a sports restaurant last night and got in a discussion with someone that mentioned that a certain kind of cancer was about 5x more common today than 100 years ago, and so that proved that our polluting the environment was making people sicker. I had to remind this person that this particular cancer is only detectable before it was in its last stages or before death by very modern instrumentation like MRI’s that did not exist until very recently. There is almost always no symptomatology due to the cancer itself until the very end. Therefore until fairly recently many deaths attributed to natural causes or “unknown” were actually this kind of cancer, but there is no way to go back and know how many. That doesn’t mean he is wrong about pollutants increasing this kind of disease, but that he cannot prove it that way because the baseline is highly unreliable. Then I threw in that you also had to adjust for the fact that people lived a lot longer, etc. but the main thing in this case is simply having a lot more reports of the disease even if the rate is identical, because it is being reported at a higher rate. In this case because of technology, in the case of rape because of changes in social issues.
@fallenchemist - agreed on all counts! It just means that education is required for @Derivativeofx on both reporting # vs incidence AND on rape being a crime of power/violence and not of sex.
And another question for anyone who thinks that confining sex to “marriage” will omit rape as a problem - what about marital rape? There is strong evidence that in theocratic societies that try hard to prohibit extramarital sex, and/or those that control women via polygyny or other economic structures, that women’s lower status and less inter-personal understanding before marriage leads to higher incidence of marital rape.
I love that @fallenchemist discusses in-depth topics like that at a sports restaurant! 
Here’s a question I’ve been pondering this morning: if you are the parents of the victim, do you fly in for this hearing? I think I would (unless it meant missing a family/spring break trip). I think think it’s easy to forget about the victim and surely Labrie’s team is going to try to make the terms of his bail seem onerous. Having the victim’s parent(s) present is a good reminder that the underlying crime was not victimless.
Side thought - in what universe do online classes require research at one specific library?
Agreed. Even in the most conservative of times, there was tons of willing premarital sex. Puritanical societies (and I mean that as a description of the times, not a judgement) just drive it more underground is all. Hard as it is to believe, there is every chance American society will undergo a phase of more conservative attitudes as far as being so open about sex is concerned, at least as far as personal relationships go. It isn’t like things were always like the 1950’s before the 1950’s. The roaring 20’s were extremely permissive and open with regard to premarital sex and open marriages, and there were a couple of similar cycles in the 1800’s. They tended to correlate with strong economic booms. People sometimes think that before the 1960’s everything was very Puritanical. Just not true at all. And as far as anyone can tell, the rates of rape were not dependent on these cyclical variations, but it is very hard to know because the data is so unreliable.
LOL. Well, here is the path. The guy is a Park Ranger, working for the Federal Park Service. One of his current duties is to be a focal point in helping teach all guides and others on how to handle discussions about climate change. He also talks to school groups. Without getting this further off track, that led to a discussion about poor data from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s and how to handle questions about that, then to how amazing the technology is now, and it then got to the discussion about being careful about claims just because we can detect things so much better now. Such as the cancer one he mentioned relative to these environmental changes. He was a really good guy and it was such a civil discussion where we both (and doubtless a few others around us) gained valuable insights and knowledge.
OK, back to regular programming.
I would think that the parents should absolutely be there if the prosecutors think it will help. I guess the question would be if the judge would even know who they are.
I am clueless on the library, you must be referring to a post I didn’t see. Seems absurd on its face.
@fallenchemist, I was being sincere about the conversation! The few times I’ve been to sports bars/restaurants there is nothing that interesting being discussed.
The “he had to travel to meet with professors and use the library for his online course” excuse was in the pleading that the defense submitted. Scroll down to the bottom once you click this link:
" I guess the question would be if the judge would even know who they are." He should. I read it’ll be the same judge as the trial judge and both parents testified at the trial. I can’t imagine the judge will be that happy to see Labrie back in court so soon.
An online course may give an assignment that can best be done by going to a major library to do research.
Oh, I took it as sincere! I thought you might like to know how it evolved. I sit next to the most interesting people sometimes. In fact, after Park Ranger left, the couple that came in to take that spot were the parents of a star player on the losing Baylor team from the NCAA men’s tournament here in Providence. They lost to Yale, a bit of a shocker. Fascinating discussion about recruiting, their hopes for the NBA draft in June (he is a senior graduating as a communications major), playing in Europe of China if he is not drafted, etc. Just the parents, not the kid of course. He was still with his team. Nothing discussed relevant to this topic, alas!
Then wouldn’t Dartmouth’s libraries have sufficed? Or maybe ones at UVM or UNH?
I think he was going to Cambridge to skulk around Harvard because he still can’t fathom that he won’t achieve riches, respect and that Harvard degree.