The overwhelming episode of "Rape claim" & its effect on Males look towards females

[SkepticThinker]

Did the people who witnessed the attempted rape confirmher version?

Did you watch her testimony?

The people who witnessed her attempted rape were involved in attempting to rape her.
Nobody else was allowed to testify at the hearing.

You've said she's not credible. So I ask again, did you watch her testimony?

 

[Estro Felino]

You've said she's not credible. So I ask again, did you watch her testimony?

Yes..I did...
Is her testimony supposed to be credible only because of her whiny performance?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes..I did...
Is her testimony supposed to be credible only because of her whiny performance?

I would say because she spoke and behaved in a way that would indicate to me that she was telling the truth. She looked terrified to me, which is exactly what I would expect. If I were up there, I'd have passed out from an anxiety attack.

 

[Estro Felino]

I would say because she spoke and behaved in a way that would indicate to me that she was telling the truth. She looked terrified to me, which is exactly what I would expect. If I were up there, I'd have passed out from an anxiety attack.

There have been murderers who, while giving testimony, have cried and yelled "I'm innocent".
Emotions are less reliable than the polygraph

 

[SkepticThinker]

There have been murderers who, while giving testimony, have cried and yelled "I'm innocent".
Emotions are less reliable than the polygraph

Not sure how that's the same. But ok.

Many people thought she was credible. I am one of them. You're not. Your prerogative. I don't get it, but it's your prerogative.

 

[sealchan]

The workplace sensitivity barometer:

Insensitive........0..........Hypersensitive

The needle should be at zero. I think it has swung from insensitive to hyper-sensitive because sanctimony has a powerful influence on moral advances. It will take a while to swing back to zero--balance.

I think that it is just hard for a lot of men to "get it". I just watched the latest episode of The Good Doctor on Hulu and the episode was an elegant presentation of the problem with how men aren't expected to empathize (they quickly forget the emotion context for others) and women, since they are better at it, get tasked with doing the relating in a relationship.

Very well done episode and can stand alone if anyone is interested in watching. It is Season 3 EP3 "36 Hours".

The point being that men grow quickly uncomfortable with criticism in this area of empathy because, well, the masculine, separative ego mode of development is used to resolving conflict by authority and initiative and otherwise dominating. But this mode fails when it is not necessary to win in a relationship but to come to a consensus or mutual understanding and respect. Women are continually, by default, those that have to keep the peace while the "boys" fight it out. As a result women "lack initiative and aggression" but if they exhibit these qualities they very quickly are criticized for being irritable and in a mood of some sort.

This is perhaps why you think the sensitivity barometer is hypersensitive...for many women it has gone from hopeless to annoying.

 

[joe1776]

I think that it is just hard for a lot of men to "get it". I just watched the latest episode of The Good Doctor on Hulu and the episode was an elegant presentation of the problem with how men aren't expected to empathize (they quickly forget the emotion context for others) and women, since they are better at it, get tasked with doing the relating in a relationship.

Very well done episode and can stand alone if anyone is interested in watching. It is Season 3 EP3 "36 Hours".

The point being that men grow quickly uncomfortable with criticism in this area of empathy because, well, the masculine, separative ego mode of development is used to resolving conflict by authority and initiative and otherwise dominating. But this mode fails when it is not necessary to win in a relationship but to come to a consensus or mutual understanding and respect. Women are continually, by default, those that have to keep the peace while the "boys" fight it out. As a result women "lack initiative and aggression" but if they exhibit these qualities they very quickly are criticized for being irritable and in a mood of some sort.

This is perhaps why you think the sensitivity barometer is hypersensitive...for many women it has gone from hopeless to annoying.

OK, I think your explanation make sense, but that's not all there is to it, IMO.

I think all moral advances swing from insensitive to hypersensitive before they swing back again primarily because the very common need to feel superior to others can be satisfied by the attitude "My morals are superior to yours!"

Try writing about Jews, blacks, women or homosexuals in this forum in an ordinary conversation without being very careful how you craft your sentences. If it's possible to turn what you say into a statement of bias, some poster will jump on it and do just that.

 

[sealchan]

OK, I think your explanation make sense, but that's not all there is to it, IMO.

I think all moral advances swing from insensitive to hypersensitive before they swing back again primarily because the very common need to feel superior to others can be satisfied by the attitude "My morals are superior to yours!"

Try writing about Jews, blacks, women or homosexuals in this forum in an ordinary conversation without being very careful how you craft your sentences. If it's possible to turn what you say into a statement of bias, some poster will jump on it and do just that.

True but since I am none of those things I would want to be careful to begin with.

 

[Shad]

They should be believed when they come forward with their stories as well. But we have to face facts that there has been (and is) an epidemic of violence against women in North America (and various places around the world).

Nope as said belief would mean the accused is guilty without evidence based only on a story. Taking seriously? Yes. Believed? No.

 

[Shad]

I didn't see her prediction.
I wonder if she gave thought to how Kavanaugh would be treated?

We all should have expected radicals from both sides attacking Kav and Ford along with family and friends. It is part of politics now.

 

[Shad]

Not sure how that's the same. But ok.

Emotional manipulation. People put on the "right" face, tear works go off, etc to buy empathy to override logic and evidence. Children use crying as soon as they figure out crying gets a specific response from weak willed parents. Adults do it in media by framing reports to trigger specific emotional responses like CNN and Fox. Hence why courts of public opinion are nothing more than emotional mobs.

 

[Revoltingest]

We all should have expected radicals from both sides attacking Kav and Ford along with family and friends. It is part of politics now.

Aye, Ford must've been somewhat aware, since
she made some effort to stay out of the spotlight.
But Pelosi would have no truck with that.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Nope as said belief would mean the accused is guilty without evidence based only on a story. Taking seriously? Yes. Believed? No.

How do you take an allegation seriously without believing it?

 

[Revoltingest]

How do you take an allegation seriously without believing it?

Believe that it might be accurate.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm talking in the broader sense of the MeToo movement. I don't deny that men are raped as well. Of course they are. They should be believed when they come forward with their stories as well. But we have to face facts that there has been (and is) an epidemic of violence against women in North America (and various places around the world).

There's been an epidemic of violence against people, and to discard half the world's folks is sad.
And we shouldn't auto-believe everybody who makes rape claims, whether man or woman, because many such claims are malicious lies; so we need to investigate and Try claims in Courts for Judgements and verdicts. Otherwise we're just a bunch of sharia-like vigilantes ...

Someone was complaining that they have to be careful about flirting with co-workers and talking to women in nightclubs. Those are things that should have been happening all along. If that's the worst thing that happens from all this, I'd have to say that's not so bad. And it pales in comparison to the worrying that women have had to deal with on a daily basis, throughout their lives. Of course men can be and are, sexually harassed/assaulted as well. But this whole thing has been flipped around to make perpetrators of sexual harassment/assault to be the victims, and it's wrong.

Crimes are wrong, but any perjuries are wrong as well. We have to investigate all claims and then punish as many offenders as possible, including anybody who has lied or perjured themselves. If we just go out and punish/hurt everybody who is accused, that's called a witch-hunt and it is bad.

 

[oldbadger]

How do you take an allegation seriously without believing it?

Hi.....
That is easy, to take allegations seriously, but in a detached way which allows as much competent investigation as possible.

If we believe every allegation without investigation then there's no point in Courts Trials and verdicts. But the drawback there is in a situation where somebody/anybodu accuses you or a loved one of a serious criminal offence which they/you didn't commit, a malicious allegation for some reason or other. Would you like the allegations to be investigated or would you just like to go to prison for several years whilst your family is turned out of your home (say) and given to the perjured claimant?

Believing in claims automatically is dangerous.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Hi.....
That is easy, to take allegations seriously, but in a detached way which allows as much competent investigation as possible.

If we believe every allegation without investigation then there's no point in Courts Trials and verdicts. But the drawback there is in a situation where somebody/anybodu accuses you or a loved one of a serious criminal offence which they/you didn't commit, a malicious allegation for some reason or other. Would you like the allegations to be investigated or would you just like to go to prison for several years whilst your family is turned out of your home (say) and given to the perjured claimant?

Believing in claims automatically is dangerous.

I assume we are talking about an impartial investigator, not someone with a personal stake in the issue. I'm sorry, I simply can't imagine how to investigate an allegation I didn't believe. Or at least, believe that the person making the allegation believes it.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not sure how that's the same. But ok.

Many people thought she was credible. I am one of them. You're not. Your prerogative. I don't get it, but it's your prerogative.

The psychological profile of the accused, Kavanaugh, plays an indispensable role.
If the accuser succeeds in demonstrating that BK is a potential rapist (through testimonies of friends or psychiatric evaluations) then Ford's credibility rises.

Penal law is a Juridic science...emotions have zero relevance.

 

[oldbadger]

I assume we are talking about an impartial investigator, not someone with a personal stake in the issue. I'm sorry, I simply can't imagine how to investigate an allegation I didn't believe. Or at least, believe that the person making the allegation believes it.

A professional investigator, at least a competent one, is detached, seeking only for facts and evidence in any matter.

Investigator's with stakes in an issue are not agenda free detectives, I'm afraid, and their 'findings' are often contaminated by bent-vision.

Investigators don't have to believe in anything, they just have to investigate for as much fact and evidence as possible. This evidence should then be delivered up to a Court for trial, and juries and/or Judges decide what is true, or not, what is adequate evidence, or not. It's our system, which can go wrong but it's the best that we have got.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There's been an epidemic of violence against people, and to discard half the world's folks is sad.
And we shouldn't auto-believe everybody who makes rape claims, whether man or woman, because many such claims are malicious lies; so we need to investigate and Try claims in Courts for Judgements and verdicts. Otherwise we're just a bunch of sharia-like vigilantes ...

In North American, at least, violent crime rates have been going down for decades.

There is an epidemic of violent sexual crime against women. When something like 1 in 3 women will face sexual violence in their lifetime, that's a problem. The statistics for men aren't so hot either. It's about 1 in 6, for men. To say that many rape claims " are malicious lies" is to ignore the vast majority of claims that are NOT malicious lies, and which are actually true.

I agree that people need to be properly tried in a court of law, before going to prison for violent sex crimes.
In Kavanaugh's case though, all we were talking about was a job interview, which doesn't meet the same standards as a court of law.

Crimes are wrong, but any perjuries are wrong as well. We have to investigate all claims and then punish as many offenders as possible, including anybody who has lied or perjured themselves. If we just go out and punish/hurt everybody who is accused, that's called a witch-hunt and it is bad.