Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    That violence is an appropriate response to a date rape attempt,
    because NO means NO.
    
    That for some strange reason, part of the population things NO means
    YES, so when you say NO, make sure you mean NO, and make sure they hear
    NO very loudly if necessary.
    
    That you do not deserve to be forced to do anything sexual against your
    will, and if a violent verbal or physical reaction does not serve as
    enough deterrant, prosecution should follow
    
    (of course, next we have to modify the judicial system and the social
    climate so that rape is taken seriously as the violent offense it is).
    
    -Jody

    Teaching young women that the physiological sexual response typically
    happens much more quickly for males than for females.
    I don't feel I have sufficient command of either language or propriety
    to carry this any further. I hope others can.

    Instruct girls and women that if you don't want to have sex, then
    you must communicate this to your partner.
    
    Instruct them on the dangers of allowing themselves into high risk
    situations (being drunk or stoned), walking alone late at night in
    a high-risk place, etc.

    I don't think that teaching the female population how to defend
    themselves will make date rape and rape occure less often.  Men
    should take the responsiblity of PUNISHING HARSHLY those men who rape; 
    As well educate the male popluation, that RAPE in any form is 
    completely unacceptable.
    
    Potential rapist need to know that males DON'T accept this type of
    behaviour, and that it will in no circumstances be tolerated.
    
    Males need to take this issue on, not the victims.
    
    
    Jeff...

    If the sentences dished out were more severe, it might deter
    men from rape. 
    I have three young daughters and two young sons and if any of them were
    interfered with, or interfered with in any way, I would feel it my duty
    to do something about it. If it were one of my daughters there is no 
    where the brute would be safe. If one of my sons were involved he would 
    not get off with it either.
    
    Teaching children right frim wrong at a young age may help.
    
    
    Martin
    

    What do you think would happen if you made the average rape sentence
    as severe as the average manslaughter sentence?
    
    Do you think that would encourage the rapist to also kill the victim?
    
    I do.
    
    When RI upped the minimum penalty for drunk driving to $450 and loss
    of license for 30 days, hit and runs increased almost 300% to 3 per
    day, on average, in Providence alone.  The minimum penatly for hit
    and run, no personal injury, is $450 and no loss of license.

    
    maybe if they all killed the victim someone would actually take the
    crime as the serious violation it is and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
    
    Then again, maybe the penalty would reduce the incidence.
    
    -Jody
    

RE: .7

I don't know, Jody.  I think that the crime *is* considered a serious one.
The problem is that so many cases are so difficult to prove conclusively.
In our criminal justice system, the burden of proof is on the accuser (and
should stay there, IMO).  Juries are supposed to enter the courtroom skeptical
of the accuser's story.

Too many rape cases boil down to "she said he forced her and he says he didn't".
Then the jury can only go by who seems most believable.

I can't think of anything that will improve the odds of convicting a rapist
(especially a "date rapist") that wouldn't introduce more injustice than it
prevents.  Can you?

                                                       -- Mike

    the only thing I can think of that will improve the odds of convicting
    an actual rapist was to improve the credibility of ALL women in this
    society.
    
    Actually believing that women know the difference between yes and no,
    and are capable of accurately reporting the facts, fully aware of all
    the implications, and dedicated to justice being served, would be a
    start.  If everyone actually believed that, I think it'd be a big step
    forward.
    
    Don't give me the "she wanted it but didn't know it" or "she wanted it
    but changed her mind" or "she just wants to see him in jail because
    she's a b*tch with a grudge".  Give me the "she was raped.  she said
    no, and he didn't listen.  he deserves to be punished."
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Teach them that they can try to *change* the world *into* what they 
    want it to be, but for now they will have to deal with the world
    the way it *is*.
    
    I think we could start by teaching young girls not only to say no to
    boys/men, but to say no to situations that will put them at risk.  
    Because once they find themselves in an isolated situation with a
    rapist, "no" isn't going to buy them much.  I.e. avoid being alone
    with any man that she does not know well enought to trust.  There
    *are* nice ways of saying no without making the male, if he is not
    a rapist, feel like something that crawled out from under a rock.
    
    Get them enough training in self defense that if they should find
    themselves in a "situation" that they can disable the attacker long
    enough to escape.  Teach them that violence (even extreme violence if
    necessary) in self defense *is* ok, even necessary.  Rapists don't
    like to deal with women who will put up a fight.  Just *knowing*
    how to defend themselves will allow them to behave with a confidence
    that will deter most attackers.
    
    Teach them that if they *are* raped, to go *straight* to the police
    and/or emergency room.  Many/most women are so hung up about their
    bodies, that they find dealing with the police and emergency room
    so embarrasing that they will let the rape go unreported rather
    than do the things necessary to gather the evidence necessary to
    convict a rapist.  Recent advancements in DNA "fingerprinting" make
    identification and convition *much* easier if the proper care is
    taken in collecting the evidence in the first place.  Teach them
    that going to the emergency room is not "humiliation" but 
    *FIGHTING BACK*.  Teach them that because the way the American
    judicial system works, they may not convict the rapist for her
    particular attack, but her evidence will add to the evidence in
    catching and convicting the rapist.  Even if the rapist is not
    convicted, it will at the very least slow him down a little so
    that maybe at least *one* other woman will not be attached by this
    particular rapist.
    
    fred();

    Jody,
    
    There was a case where a woman sent a man to prision for rape. She
    trumped it up because she was a pregnant minor and wanted to take the
    blame off her irresponsibilities and place the blame on someone else.
    This man spent a good 10years of his life in the big house. With
    many women throwing men into the streets on a trumped up charge
    of physical abuse to gain the upper hand in a divorce. What makes
    you think that things are going to be differnet or fair when men
    go to jail because someone wants to take the blame off them? Just find
    a man and blame him into jail? We already send men to jail or to
    debtors prision because the cannot afford childsuport or alimony.

    <because she was a pregnant minor>
    
    Could you elaborate on that please, George?
    The question is prompted by your statement that she was a pregnant
    minor. If that was true, then I am thinking that by definition he raped
    (statutory) her.
    
    
    				herb

    Yes, I guess this is a very old one. I remember seeing it some years
    ago in the paper. She was about 17 years, he was I guess 19. And it
    was that. There isn't much of an age differnce, it wasn't like that
    he was older, but I guess he wasn't the father of the child, just a 
    close friend. Some friend.... If this happens, what is to say that
    with a diffence of age, and a society that has this phobia about men
    being over sexed mad men driven by their loins and their testorin
    that it wont be long before your hung as a witch? 

re: .11
>Jody,
    
>    There was a case where a woman sent a man to prision for rape. She
>    trumped it up because she was a pregnant minor and wanted to take the
>    blame off her irresponsibilities and place the blame on someone else.
>    This man spent a good 10years of his life in the big house. With
>    many women throwing men into the streets on a trumped up charge
>    of physical abuse to gain the upper hand in a divorce. What makes
>    you think that things are going to be differnet or fair when men
>    go to jail because someone wants to take the blame off them? Just find
>    a man and blame him into jail? We already send men to jail or to
>    debtors prision because the cannot afford childsuport or alimony.
    
    
    And of course, if one woman is a liar, most of them are, if not all.
    
    It's this attitude that causes many rapists to walk free even after
    going to trial.
    
    Jesus Holy #ucking C#rist.  Imagine how few women are lying.  Imagine
    how few women could carry through perjury to a conviction, either
    because they're flakes to believe it could work in the first place, or
    because justice WILL prevail if given a chance.  And imagine
    how many women fear reporting rape, fear taking the man to trial and
    prosecuting him, because so MANY people believe what you believe,
    George.
    
    "all women are lying bitches" is the same attitude as "all black men
    are criminals".....both are REMARKABLY damaging to our society and
    cause a tremendous amount of dysfunction in the way it works.  We're
    all supposed to have rights.  We're all supposed to have opportunities. 
    And we're all supposed to have some amount of respect inherent in the
    fact that we're humans on this earth.  It just doesn't work that way
    when people extrapolate the VAST MINORITY to mean some strange,
    imagined majority.
    
    -Jody

    I am not saying that all women are lying, nor am I making any statement
    of Black men. I am saying that there are men who get f*cked by this
    system too. And sorry if life isn't fine and rosey for you either. It
    certainly isn't for many of us. But what of these flakes? Your quick to 
    casterate all men being rapist. What kinda freeking attitude is that?
    What kind of justice is there for men who are now guilty till proven
    inocent? So far there is no shield of protection for men when being
    acused of rape. I didn't see any gag order for the press to cover
    the face of Mr. Smith reguardless if he was or was not a rapist. 
    As there is/was no protection for the men of the Big Dan case. But
    thats a fair case of criminal prosectution. Right?? I donno my friend.
    There are a lotta flakes out there. And sex, color, what ever doesn't
    have a thing to do with it. Execpt who is really getting hurt.
    
     

>    certainly isn't for many of us. But what of these flakes? Your quick to 
>    casterate all men being rapist. What kinda freeking attitude is that?
    
    Where did I say "castrate all men for being rapists"?  
    
>    What kind of justice is there for men who are now guilty till proven
>    inocent? So far there is no shield of protection for men when being
>    acused of rape. I didn't see any gag order for the press to cover
    
    What kind of justice is there now for women who have been raped and are
    not believed?  How many more raped women are there than rapists?
    
>    thats a fair case of criminal prosectution. Right?? I donno my friend.
>    There are a lotta flakes out there. And sex, color, what ever doesn't
>    have a thing to do with it. Execpt who is really getting hurt.
    
    Who IS really getting hurt?  I say there are far more women being raped
    and not being believed than men who are going to jail because women had
    grudges and justice didn't prevail in those cases.  But a thousand
    women suffering isn't as much as one man suffering, is it?
    
    Well, is it?
    
    Or is rape better than jail for some reason - less humiliating, less
    taxing, costing less in emotional pain and inability to trust and love
    and the utter and complete loss of the ability to be intimate with
    those you love?
    
    If someone took a broom handle and shoved it in whatever orifice you
    choose to select repeatedly and without your consent, hitting you or
    hurting you or threatening your life if you do not cooperate, and you
    go in front of a jury and they don't believe you because "someone else
    lied and got away with it a few years ago" - how would you feel?
    
    how do you know how to trust after that?  how can you trust anyone?
    how do you heal knowing that not only did nobody believe you, but the
    person is out there DOING IT TO OTHER PEOPLE.  
    
    George, I hear your side.  I know that someone lied and got away with
    it.  But that's a very rare case.  Should rapists go free more
    frequently to shield the one exception?  Should women not be believed
    because someone lied and she got away with it?  
    
    I'm sure I have a remarkably unpopular opinion in this case, in this
    file, at this time, but I feel I must state it.
    
    -Jody

    
    set flame on
    
    Jody,
    
   > Jesus Holy #ucking C#rist.  Imagine how few women are lying.  
    
    I find the attitude that in a CRIMINAL COURT because the accuser 
    is a *woman* who *claims* she has been raped, then she should be
    given *more* credibility and a man should be sent to prison for
    ten years because she *claims* she has been raped, utterly incredible 
    and hypocritical
    
    If you don't like it TAKE IT UP WITH THE SUPREME COURT.  The
    Rules of Criminal Procedure are *not* a man vs woman thing
    it is a CIVIL RIGHTS thing.
    
    set flame simmer
    fred();

    Tuff replying to your reply Jody without setting a fire on it all. 
    But if what you say is true that there are just a few flaky women out
    there making it fun for us. They why is it standard call that when a
    man is trown out of the house, a TRO is instuted? Why are there many
    men being falsey aressted for child abuse, for breaking TRO's and being
    trown into jail for debtors debts? Is this flaky women? Or is this
    standard protocal that scares me more and more. And how soon will it be
    standard protocal to send us all to prision for looking sideways at
    you. I have to say it, there are things that people get away with 
    because they are a woman, because they are a man. 

    Fred,
    
    How many cases do you believe come to court with out at least some
    evidence more than the woman's simple word that she's been raped?
    
    If it is greater than 1% of all cases I'll be seriously surprised.
    
    Bonnie

    
    re Jody
    
    We have the same problem with MURDER, ARSON, THEFT, CHILD MOLESTATION
    ETC, ETC, ETC, ETC, ETC.
    
    Women need to realize that.  They need to learn to do what it takes
    to *collect* the evicence.  Go *directly* the the emergency room
    and call the police if you are raped for starters.  The message
    that the "feminist" groups needs to be sending is "TRY DAMMIT,
    HERE'S WHAT EVIDENCE YOU WILL NEED AND HOW TO COLLECT IT".
    not "give up because no one will listen to poor little you".  If 
    I'd listened to that message, my kids would still be in Minnesota 
    living in a getto.  Because in the near future, the chances of the
    Rules of Criminal Procedure changing are "slim" and "none".
    
    The onle people who do not have rights are men and children in divorce
    cases.  That's because divorce takes place in CIVIL COURT not CRIMINAL
    COURT.  
    
    fred();

    You do N0T teach females how to avoid rape by screaming about innocent
    male victims.

    >You do NOT teach females how to avoid rape by screaming about innocent
    >male victims.
    
    Nor do we fix the problem by rounding up all the males like that was
    done in the good ol days of Germany. 

    re .20,.22
    
    Although I still feel sympathetic to the feelings I believe are being
    expressed by Jody and Bonnie, I notice that this subject was changed
    way back at entry #4, and has been wandering kinda far afield since
    then.
    
    
    				herb

    George,
    
    NO ONE has suggested rounding up all the males except you.
    
    and Herb,
    
    I've only been responding to notes, not entering new topics..
    
    Bon

    Bonnie! I have been quite for sometime here. Reading mostly. Sorry. I
    see its round up time!:) Wheres the poney and the rope!:)

Re: .25

I'll bring a set to the party, George, so you can stop asking.

			Steve

    Don't forget the jack boots and martial music, Steve.
    
    /Greg

    Great! I cannot wait! I am found of indian painted poneys! And love
    John Philip Sosuar!:)

  	Does this mean I can bring my whips ?


	kits

.14>    And of course, if one woman is a liar, most of them are, if not all.
    
.14>    Jesus Holy #ucking C#rist.  Imagine how few women are lying.  Imagine
.14>    how few women could carry through perjury to a conviction, either
    
    Dept of Justice estimates that only 2% of all rape cases that
    make it to trial are fakes.
    
    That's not a whole lot, unless you happen to BE in that 2%.

It makes me very sad when people want to dismantle the things which make this
society great in order to "fix" some perceived problem.  It would be *wrong*
for the justice system to be changed such that accusers are assumed to be
telling the truth.  A great number of cases get thrown out of court every
year because there wasn't enough evidence to prove that a crime has been
committed.  While this is a shame, there is nothing equitable that can be done
to correct the problem (other than more efficient police work, or victims being
very careful to preserve evidence).

If the stories of rape victims aren't being seriously examined by the courts,
then that's one thing and it should be corrected.  But if someone is accused of
rape (or any other crime), the jury *must* start by being skeptical of the accu-
sations.  When clear and sufficient evidence has been given to prove the accu-
sations, then a conviction can be made.  If not, and both parties are equally
credible (or the accuser is less credible) the accused cannot be found guilty.

It is much, much worse to imprison an innocent person than to let a
criminal go free.  Any chance, however so slight, of doing this must be avoided.

Hearing the suggestion that rape accusations should be presumed truthful reminds
me of how steamed I was when the NOW staged a boycott of a publisher last year
because they didn't approve of the contents of a piece of fiction that they'd
accepted for publication.  Censorship, no matter what the justification, is
*evil*.  You cannot attempt to control what people think by denying them access
to ideas which conflict with your own.

Ever read (or seen the movie of) "The Handmaid's Tale"?  We are all of us march-
ing toward the Republic of Gilead, lead by self-proclaimed liberals.

                                                       -- Mike

    re .24

    <I've only been responding to notes, not entering new topics>...

    that feels a bit like you think my entry #.23 was intending to be
    critical of you. Not my intent. 
    
    
    				herb

    >It would be *wrong* for the justice system to be changed such that
    >accusers are assumed to be telling the truth. 
    
    I think this hits on something fundamental.
    
    If I were to call the police station and say "my house has been
    broken into" the police wouldn't automatically assume I was telling
    a lie.  They would assume my house had actually been broken into
    and they would drive over and write up a report.  They (hopefully)
    wouldn't treat me with contempt because I didn't have a deadbolt
    on my door.  They wouldn't insinuate that I was at fault because I
    didn't have an alarm system....
    
    That's just the begining.  Follow thru the system and see how often
    the victim is treated with a little respect.  See how often the 
    victim isn't presumed to be dishonest (even when the possibility of
    a false claim has to be kept in mind).  How long did it take in the
    Stuart case before Charles Stuart himself because a suspect? (granted
    that was an unusual case).
    
    My point is that although the accused *MUST* be presumed innocent,
    that *DOES NOT MEAN* the victim *MUST* be presumed guilty of telling
    a lie.   
    
    Assuming that a women who claims to have been raped is telling the
    truth *about having been raped* does not automatically equate to
    an assumption that any particular individual is guilty.   And that is
    precisely what I think people are asking for here.  Assume the vicitim
    is telling the truth.  Treat the vicitim with respect and compassion.
    If you begin to find evidence that the vicitm is NOT telling the truth
    then by all means follow up on it.   At the same time, treat the
    accused the same way...
    
    /Greg

    <My point is that although the accused *MUST* be presumed innocent,
    <that *DOES NOT MEAN* the victim *MUST* be presumed guilty of telling
    <a lie.   
    Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what happens in many actual cases.
    And this is because the report typically is NOT 
    "I have been raped" but rather 
    "I have been raped by <a specific person>"
    So it becomes either the accused is lying or the claimant is lying
    And once it goes to trial the jury must decide
    Is she telling the truth or 
    Is <specific person> telling the truth.
    
    I think that rape is quite different from most crimes in that the same
    event can be either a crime or consenting private behavior.
    It is often the case that the only differences between consensual sex
    and rape are ...
    	a)no physical evidence vs physical evidence (bruises, torn clothing
    						    broken furniture etc)
    	b)yes vs no.
    
    I think this _complicates_ the judicial process substantially.
    In addition to deciding whether a specific person is guilty, part of
    the judicial process is (at least implicitly) to determine whether in
    fact an actual crime took place. Isn't this the basis for why the
    Willie Smith and the Mike Tyson trials have generated so much heat?
    
    In neither case, was there a question about actual sexual congress. The
    principal question was was it rape or consensual sex
    This then becomes is the 'victim' telling the truth or is the
    'defendant' telling the truth.
    In the American judicial system the 'defendant' is assumed to be
    innocent. It is the responsibility of the 'claimant's legal
    representatives to PROVE (up to the appropriate level of 'certainty')
    that a rape occured -that the claimant is telling the truth.

    There is a note in a previous version of womannotes titled "Don't
    Scream, someone might hear you" that details how the average rape
    victim is treated by the police and by the hospital and the
    prosecution. I'd encourage those of you who don't understand why women
    have a problem reporting rape to go back and read it.
    
    Bonnie

.34>    If I were to call the police station and say "my house has been
.34>    broken into" the police wouldn't automatically assume I was telling
.34>    a lie.  They would assume my house had actually been broken into
.34>    and they would drive over and write up a report.  They (hopefully)
.34>    wouldn't treat me with contempt because I didn't have a deadbolt
.34>    on my door.  They wouldn't insinuate that I was at fault because I
.34>    didn't have an alarm system....
    
    They would, however, examine your house for signs that a break-in had
    occurred.  And you would have to show some evidence that something had
    been taken.  And neither they or anyone else (particularly your
    insurance company) would have much sympathy for you if you had not
    taken even the simplest precautions against theft (such as locking your
    doors and windows when away).
    
    If the police in your area are any good, they aren't going to "assume"
    anything when receiving a report of a crime.  They will come and
    investigate and draw their conclusions afterwards.
    
    Alleged rape victims should certainly be treated civilly during and
    after the investigation into their accusations.  If our system is
    failing to do that, it should be corrected.
    
.34>                                            How long did it take in the
.34>    Stuart case before Charles Stuart himself because a suspect? (granted
.34>    that was an unusual case).
    
    If you listen to the Boston PD, Charles Stuart was immediately the
    prime suspect, as are all spouses and SO's when a woman is murdered
    (something like 80% of all murdered women are murdered by their
    husbands and boyfriends).  Of course, it didn't look that way (and
    given the media generated public backlash over that case, the police
    would have been quite unwise to publicly state any suspicions they had
    of Stuart).  Yes, that was a *very* unusual case and it was handled in a
    *very* unusual manner by the police.  Let's leave Boston's racist city
    politics out of this.
    
.34>    My point is that although the accused *MUST* be presumed innocent,
.34>    that *DOES NOT MEAN* the victim *MUST* be presumed guilty of telling
.34>    a lie.   
    
    The accuser shouldn't be presumed "guilty of telling a lie".  Just of
    maybe not getting all of the facts straight.
    
.34>    Assuming that a women who claims to have been raped is telling the
.34>    truth *about having been raped* does not automatically equate to
.34>    an assumption that any particular individual is guilty.
    
    In many (if not most) rape cases the accuser *is* claiming that a
    "particular individual is guilty".  You cannot then simultaneously
    presume that she is telling the truth *and* that the accused is
    innocent.  As judge or juror, you have to start somewhere:  presume
    that the accused is innocent and weigh the evidence against him or her
    to determine if it convinces you otherwise.
    
    						-- Mike

    Bonnie:
    Please explain how your comment .36 is relevant either to my reply in 
    .35 or to much of the discussion in 762.

    I think if you can explain the relevance satisfactorily a huge stride
    will have been taken in resolving a lot of the conflict that exists in
    this conference.

    I hope you do agree that your comment is not relevant to is Mike Tyson
    guilty. Is Willie Smith innocent. Or any other specific trial.

    (parenthetically, it is all too often the case that crimes like breaking 
    and entering, burglary, vandalism, stolen property are treated by police
    with attitudes similar to those the feeling_terribly_harried_police 
    use in response to a report of rape. 
    Justifiable? NO! A very crappy reality (maybe complicated because 
    cops are men)

    One of the problems with dealing with rape is that women are treated
    very badly in many many cases by the police by the health care
    personnel and by the court systems. This tends to discourage women
    from reporting rape unless there is compelling evidence that she
    has indeed been raped. If one listens to some of the stories told
    by women who were legitimately raped of how they were treated, one
    would be far less apt to assume that women casually cry rape to get
    men in trouble.

    regardless of how seriously we treat the stories of women who were
    raped...
    Our legal system requires that an accusation against a specific person
    is false (more correctly the defendant is innocent) until proven guilty.
    The ways that women get abused again by the authorities AFTER having
    been raped is despicable.
    But then a number of men in this conference cry out that _they_ have
    been abused by the same system. 
    
    				herb

    
    re .39
    
    This is one area that I *do* blame on women.  If you don't at
    least *try* to do something about the rapist, then *you* are
    the one responsible for letting that rapist go free probably
    to rape someone else.  
    
    To not try, and thereby let the rapist go free, just because you may 
    not be treated as nicely and sympathetically by "the system" as you
    think you should be (I think) speaks volumes of the female psyche.
    
    fred();
    

    fred,
    
    try talking to a few rape victims first before you so blithely
    condem women. or better yet, go read the rape victim notes in
    the archived versions of womannotes.
    
    Bonnie

    
    	i'm afraid, ::HADDOCK, that what you seem to be asking is that
    	the (female) victim be asked to take on humiliation upon
    	humiliation....first of the rape itself...then of the 
    	subsequent interrogation....
    
    	....and this for some, is a bit too much to ask.

    
    
    Humiliation or not, the police (nice or not) cannot investigate,
    without an investigation the DA cannot prosecute, without prosectuion,
    the court cannot convict.  Humiliation or not,  if you do not call
    the police or go to the emergency room, YOU are the one that decided
    to let the rapist go.
    
    We all have to do things in our life that are not pleasant. 
    
    fred();

    RE: situations in which the alleged victim names an individual 
        as the alleged rapist
    
      In those cases, I agree with you (Scott and Herb) that the 
    accusation immediately sets up a "who is telling the truth" scenario.
    
    Obviously in cases where there are definate, physical signs an
    attack has taken place, we have a more difficult task.
    
    /Greg

    RE: .44  Fred
    
    >  -< An equal opportunity basher >-
    
    You're yelling at (and bashing) rape victims.  (Fun for you?)
    
    Also, please keep in mind that THE VAST MAJORITY of rapists go free
    even when the rape victim does try to prosecute (and I'm talking
    about stranger-jumps-out-from-the-bushes rape.)
    
    The best chance of a conviction is present when multiple rape 
    victims come forward to identify (and testify) against the same 
    individual.  Otherwise, rape victims have no way to make sure
    a rapist is kept off the streets (even if everything possible
    is done to prosecute.)
    
    By the way, men are usually FAR less likely (than women) to report 
    being raped or battered.  Does this make men WORSE than women (in
    your eyes) when it comes to deserving blame for not being willing
    to come forward (or do you make special excuses for men's feelings?)

    Now Susanne, 
    
    Your bashing suspected men before they are proven guilty. Round up
    time. Just like was done in Germany. Round em up! If a rapist jumping
    out of the bushs and attacks a woman. There is hard core evidence. But
    when someone is calling wolf, because the boys at the bar are not
    paying attention to her, or her husband is a workaholic, or she is
    getting no fun in her life and needs some kicks. There is the differnce 
    that Fred and many of us are calling foul. And perhaps you should go
    read other periodicals in reguards.
    
    With Respect
    George 

    Bonnie:

    Fred's sensitivity could no doubt use some polishing.
    I suggest you reply to .35,.38,.40 instead.
    I don't quite understand why it is so important to get some people to
    publicly state that sometimes women get a raw deal in our judicial
    system. Men sometimes do too. And there may well be a connection
    between the heat with which some men reply to perceived bitching and
    their own personal experiences with the judicial system specifically
    vis a vis women.
    I believe that if a defense attorney found out during the discovery
    process that a potential juror had been raped, that would be cause for
    peremptory challenge at least if not also a challenge for cause. (on
    the assumption of bias)

    re .43
    If you cut aside the flowery verbiage, what I read into .42 is something
    like ...
    yes the (female) victim suffers the humiliation of the rape, then also
    (SOMETIMES) suffers the humiliation of the interrogation and sometimes
    suffers the humiliation of the trial. Do you really think we don't know
    that?
    That's sh#tty, sh#t happens, and then you die.
    You know it could be as simple as (it ain't,t but it's part of it)...
    cops don't like victims (regardless of gender) 
    victims make them work.
    I hope you also recognize that the judicial system's sensitivity to
    this has grown enormously over the last 2 decades. (and i suppose if
    you want to say that the increased sensitivity is partially as a result
    of harrassment by feminists, it would be hard to argue). 
    
    				herb
    

.39>                           If one listens to some of the stories told
.39>    by women who were legitimately raped of how they were treated, one
.39>    would be far less apt to assume that women casually cry rape to get
.39>    men in trouble.

Who's assuming this?  Someone in this discussion pointed out that the authori-
ties estimate that only 2% of rapes are reported falsely.  But that's a statis-
tic that absolutely should not be considered by the justice system when investi-
gating and prosecuting an allegation.  One person put through the humiliation
and degradation of being sent to prison for a crime he or she did not commit is
not justified by a 1000 guilty men convicted.

Just last year in Washington State, a man was falsely convicted of rape and spent
a year in prison (until his accuser claimed that another man had raped her in
exactly the same circumstances and was found to have made prior, unsubstantiated
claims using the same story).  This poor guy's life was *ruined* because some
unbalanced woman chose to make him the object of her recurring rape fantasy/
nightmare.  And he was convicted on the strength of her testimony alone.  This
should *never* happen.

Yes, we should treat rape victims with more courtesy and respect.  But that
does not include lending more credence to their stories than is due.

                                                           -- Mike

    
    
    re .46
    
    Not fun.  I just don't have any sympathy for it.  If you don't
    at least TRY then NOBODY else can do ANYTHING.  In that case
    the injustices of the rest of the system are a moot point.
    
>    The best chance of a conviction is present when multiple rape 
>    victims come forward to identify (and testify) against the same 
>    individual.  Otherwise, rape victims have no way to make sure
>    a rapist is kept off the streets (even if everything possible
>    is done to prosecute.)
    
    	This is *precisely* why *every* rape should be reported.
    	
    fred();

    RE: .47  George
    
    > Your bashing suspected men before they are proven guilty. Round up
    > time. Just like was done in Germany. Round em up!
    
    This is absolute rubbish.
    
    Show me where I advocated this.

    A (slightly tongue in cheek) suggestion.

    Hey guys, howabout we let Mike Scott and Greg Schuler do the discussing
    for us? They seem to be doing a pretty decent job of examining the
    issues fairly
    
    				herb
    
    

    re .49
    
    Mike,
    
    Essentially you are right in the case you are talking about.  James
    Liggett was the victim of a woman that definitely had her own agenda. 
    But keep in mind that Mr. Liggett has done his own fair share of
    exaggerating.  I watched him (and the woman who accused him) on
    Northwest Afternoon a couple of weeks ago.  He made allegations against
    the victim that were untrue and his attorny backed up the woman.  This
    case has *alot* of open ends to it.  From watching both of them, they
    both have a screw loose somewhere.  IMHO, of course.
    
    Karen

    re .47, .51, who are these men who were rounded up in Germany for
    raping women?  I've never heard of it.
    
    Lorna
    

A rapist does not wake up one morning and decide to be a rapist.  It starts
back in childhood.

Typically in this country a young man will go out with his male friends
and they split the cost of whatever evenly.  If one guy is a little short
of money somone else may pay his way but in my experience if one guy never
pays he is eventually dropped from the invitation list.  He is looked upon
as 'not quite as good as' the rest of the group.

When a young man then goes out with a young woman he is expected to pay in
most cases.  From watching my kids this tradition has not changed much
since I was in High School.  The young man will then consciously or
unconsciously see the young woman as 'less than' his male buddies.

What I've done is teach my daughters to pay their own way.  I believe if
you want someone to treat you like an equal you need to be an equal.  If a
young woman pays her own way there is no need (real or fantasy) to
reciprocate.  It also teaches the young female that she is truly equal to
the young male.  Needless to say I have three very strong willed daughters.

patrick

    I agree Patrick
    
    self-confidence, and self-assuredness probably map pretty well onto
    rape avoidance skills. (not sure I see teen-age boys as being
    particularly egalitarian though).

    re.20
    
    Fred,  I just don't know where to begin ...
    
    "...TRY DAMMIT..."  ?
    
    Yes, I've been doing this for years.  Having been raped once by a close
    personal friend [some friend ... is there as echo in here?] and then
    again by the system, you can bet numerous valuable body parts that I
    try like _hell_ to educate potential rape victims [age and sex note a
    factor]
    
    Yeah, I did the 'right' things.  No, I didn't bathe a single piece of
    my anatomy or disturb a single garment [I tossed A big tent-like
    garment over what was left].  Yes, I immediately went to a friend,
    notified the police and got myself to an emergency room [within 40
    minutes].  I arrived in the ER with a few of his pubic hairs still
    clinging to me, samples of his skin and blood under my finger-nails, a
    concussion, many contusions, and vaginal tearing.  The man I accused
    was found to have blood-stains of my type [not his] on his clothing.
    You could say that the physical eveidence was pretty f*ing compelling.
    
    No, I didn't go to trial.  The charges were thrown out within four
    hours of my filing them.
    
    I am, if course, not a 'feminist group'; but I am a bona fide
    glass-chewing harpy.
    
    I was far from 'poor little me' ... my lawyer actually told me that if
    I'd been more 'crestfallen' and less 'hostile' things might have come
    out differently.  My hostility was deemed innapropriate.  Yes, by the
    time I made it out of the ER, I was a bitch to the power of 10.
    
    Beyond exhibiting 'hostility' other mistakes I made included: I
    neglected to lose consciousness; I didn't fight hard enough to result
    in any breakage of bones; none of my wounds _required_ stitches.
    
    I can't find it in my heart to advice potential rape victims to put
    themselves in peril of their lives or serious bodily injury [should the
    occasion arise].  So, I also try to do some consciousness raising and
    lobbying to try to bring down the bar on what it takes to be believed
    in making a charge of rape.  And some good has come of it.
    
    The system quite often requires _more_ to substantiate a charge of
    rape.  I mean, if my house burns down under suspicious circumstances
    and and engraved butane lighter and a gas-can with a usuable latent
    print matching said lighter's owner is found nearby...well, the owner
    might _not_ be guilty, but evidence of circumstance would probably
    compel law enforcement to take a second look.
    
      Annie
    
    

    re .55, i don't see where there's any connection between men paying for
    their dates meals, and the incidence of rape?  Do you mean that men
    think that they have a right to sex if they pay for someone's meal?  I
    wonder how many women who have been raped missed out on having the free
    dinner first?
    
    Lorna
    

    I think he is saying that anything that goes toward affirming,
    establishing, and maintaining equality between a male and a female
    becomes another (small) step in the direction of reducing the
    likelihood of rape.

    Thanks Annie, 

RE:  .59

Yes, thank you Annie.

The system did fail you, horribly and through no fault of your own.  Whatever
broke down there *must* be addressed and corrected.  I can't imagine what the
court's excuse for throwing your case out could have been (attitude be damned,
you had clear physical evidence that you had been sexually violated after a
struggle).
                                                    -- Mike

    --Mike
    
    From what I've read and heard from other women, Annie's story is more
    the rule than the exception.
    
    Bonnie

       re. 59

What I'm saying is that males get their ideas about females early in life.
If we want to stop rape in this country we have to start eliminating the
gender imbalance.  I think that most adolescent males will perceive an
inequity between the genders because when they go out with other males
everything is generally equal and when they go out with females it's not.
When a 17 year old boy goes to work at McDonalds after school every day and
then uses that money to pay his girlfriend's way where ever they go I
believe that he and she will both perceive an inequity.  It may not even be
conscious.  I'm not saying that she OWES him sex because he paid for
dinner.  What I'm saying is that in an adolescent mind there is an inequity
that is screaming for balance.  She may not feel that she needs to repay
him with sex but I think that she will also perceive the imbalance.  When
she goes out with her female friends she pays her own way; when she goes
out with a guy he pays.  I think this and other things create an imbalance
in our young adults just as they are becoming sexually active.  I think it
subtlely puts the woman at a disadvantage.  Now for the average normal male
and average normal female this won't result in rape of any kind.  But the
imbalance is always going to be there.

patrick

    re.63
    
    Reasons that I was given for the charge being dropped:
    
      - I knew the man rather well
      - We had a past history of sexual intimacy [18 months in the past
        actually]
      - I invited him into my home [after my fiance & I had had him to
        dinner]
      - While there was substantial evidence of penetration and forceful
        resistance, I had not put up a struggle consistent with what a
        'reasonable woman' would. I had not lost consciousness, I had no
        broken bones, no deadly weapons were used [just hands, teeth, and
        other body parts].  In effect, I hadn't minded _enough_ for it to
        have been rape.
    
    All of which rather misses the point I was trying to make:
    
    Yes, it is important to teach 'avoidance skills', but it is not OK to
    cite insufficient skills as a contributory factor.  Very often these
    skills are useful.  But I am not an anomaly.  Many people are
    brutalised by those they have reason to trust.
    
    Yes, YES, it is important to teach the do's and don't's of evidence and
    corroboration in the event that avoidance skills are not sufficient
    protection.  But it is also important to teach the perils of trying to
    prosecute.  The manner in which the current system operates is not for
    the faint of heart.  The treatment I received was not [still isn't] an
    anomaly either.
    
    I strongly encourage those with whom I've done crisis work to report
    and attempt to prosecute.  Even knowing what happened to me, I would do
    it again.  Maybe I'm suffering from some quixotic delusion, but I feel
    that the more people who enter the system and can point to being
    trashed as a matter of public record the more powerful a case we build
    for fixing the system.
    
    On the other hand, knowing what I do it's hard for me to castigate a
    person who would rather not endure the experience.  Attempting to
    prosecute rape is not, for me, a political choice.  It is a question of
    personal morality and ethics, a matter which each must decide.
    
      Annie

    re .66 Annie
    
    Thanks.  It takes courage to come forward like you have.  It
    takes courage to go out and TRY DAMMIT even thought you KNOW
    your chances of suceeding are very slim.  It's not that I don't
    care about females and rape.  I have two daughters of my own.
    I am VERY concerned about what may happen to them.  The problem
    that I have is that I view many of the "solutions" being proposed
    here and elsewhere as being worse than the "problem".  Knowing how 
    I feel about my daughters ( I took on the "system" and staged a 10 year
    battle to get custody and get them out of the getto ) you may
    get some idea about how I feel about these "solution".  I have
    fought in a system where men have even less chance of getting
    custody even for legitimate reasons that women have in getting
    rape convitions.  I *know* first hand the "the system" sucks big time.
    I of anyone here may understand the emotional turmoil of taking on 
    seemingly impossible odds.  I *know* by first hand experience what 
    happens when one party is given more credibility just because they 
    are the "mother".  She sat on the withness stand and ADMITTED that 
    it was she who assaulted me.  The counselor sat on the witness stand 
    and ADMITTED ( I have the court transcripts to back this up) the he 
    *knew* what happend and *still* they helped her flee the state and hide.  
    She was given custody because she sat on th witness stand, under oath, 
    and *accused* me of tying her to the bed and raping her with a whisky 
    bottle.  I don't even drink so why would I even *have* a whisky bottle.
    
    My point is that trying *may* not get anything done.  But I GUARANTEE
    you that not trying will GUARANTEE that nothing will get done.
    
    fred();

    re .65, the reason I am annoyed with your bringing the men/boys pay for
    dates issue into a rape discussion is that when you talk about
    inequities and inequalities, you are no addressing the fact that men
    still earn a dollar to every 69 cents earned by women, in this country. 
    When that inequality is eliminated, when women earn a dollar for every
    dollar that men earn, then I will agree that, yes, men and women should
    each pay for their own meals on dates, and that there is an inequity
    when men pay for women.   However, the first inequity that exists here
    is that men earn a dollar for every 69 cents earned by women, and I
    feel that when men offer to pay for a woman's meal, that that is a step
    towards making the pay situation more equitable, i.e., the person who
    can best afford to pay, pays.  That to me *is* equitable.
    
    The reason that boys grow-up thinking that girls and women are less
    than, or not equal to men and boys, is because the qualities that women
    and girls tend to offer to men have not been valued as much by our
    society as physical strength and the ability to earn a lot of money. 
    The ability to be kind, loving and nurturing has been undervalued by
    our society so men don't think it's worth as much.
    
    A man may pay for a meal, but if the woman he is with offers him
    interesting companionship and conversation, then I think that should be
    considered equitable.  Many women, today, still cannot afford to pay
    for their own dinner in a really nice, fancy restaurant, and many men
    will be eating alone or with other men, if they are too cheap to spring
    for female companionship, because there simply are not enough women
    with high-paid jobs, yet, to go around, and some men are going to get
    stuck either choosing between women with low paid jobs, other men, or
    being alone (and serve them right, I say!)  Perhaps, once some of these
    men get lonely enough, they'll become a little bit more generous with
    their pocketbooks as well.
    
    Lorna
      

    
    If Annie's case is par for the course, and that's what people have
    meant by rape victims not being believed, then I apologize.  What I'd
    perceived some people to be saying is that, even when there is no strong
    evidence that a rape had occurred (as there clearly was in Annie's
    case), the court system should be changed so that the alleged victim is
    automatically believed because its so rare for women to falsely accuse
    men of rape.  _That_ view is misguided and dangerous.
    
    When a woman claims rape and the accused claims it was consensual sex
    and there is no evidence to contradict him, it is and *should* continue
    to be difficult to convict him.  That's the way our justice system is
    supposed to work.
    
    But when I hear that cases like Annie's are common, I can only conclude
    that there something's seriously broken.  It sounds as if we need a
    program to educate judges about rape and a legally empowered sex crime
    review board to which cases like Annie's could be appealed.  This board
    would have the power to overturn bad decisions and to reprimand the
    judges who make them (and unseat those who persist in making such
    mistakes).
    
                                                       -- Mike

    re.67
    
    To you [and to all], you are welcome ... I guess.  I'm tempted to say
    that the only reason folks feel that it 'takes courage to come forward'
    is a disquieting one ... that somehow an aura of shame must cling to
    those who've been raped.  [no, I do not believe any here feel that I
    _should_ be ashamed, just maybe like I might?]
    
    what "solutions" do you find counterproductive?
    
    Making it easier to bring a charge of rape?  
    
      Most of the argument I hear against this is that a false charge is
      detrimental to the accused.  So are false charges of murder, arson,
      theft, and assault.
    
    Making the rules of evidence consistent with other violent crimes?
    
      Annie

re. 68

Lorna,

I understand your opinion.  I wish I could wave a magic wand and make the
salary imbalance go away, but sadly I cannot.  It's not that I'm
insensitive to this problem, it's just that I can't solve this problem for
all women.  I have however been coaching my children on how to negotiate.  I
believe the basis of negotiation is high self esteem and self worth.  I
believe that hundreds of little things in growing up greatly affect your
self esteem and self worth.  Dating being one of them.

patrick

    --Mike
    
    Your reaction is exactly why I encouraged people to go back and
    re some of the notes in archived versions of womannotes that
    were written by women who were rape victims. 
    
    For those with the time and interest:
    
    IKE22::Womannotes-v1
    
    notes 189 and 645
    
    IKE22::Womannotes-v2
    
    note 99 is replies from victims
    
    also see
    
    237, 525, 767, 817, 880, 891, 961, 1027 and 1028
    
    IKE22::Womannotes-v3
    
    52, 53, 78, 95, 445, 596, 767, 778, 782, 888, 899, 902, 917, 918,
    920, and 921
    
    If you hit the 7 key on the key pad it will add version 2 to your
    note book. 
    
    (Please be aware that all three of these are archived versions and
    you won't be able to do anything but read in the files.)

    re .70 Annie
    
>    what "solutions" do you find counterproductive?
    	I would have to agree with Mike's .69.
    
>   Making it easier to bring a charge of rape?  
    
>      Most of the argument I hear against this is that a false charge is
>      detrimental to the accused.  So are false charges of murder, arson,
>      theft, and assault.
    
	That is because society has determined that false accusation 
    	is a BIG problem.   That it is better to let 1000 guilty go 
    	free thatn to convict one innocent person.  We don't want to 
        find ourselves in the position of hanging an innocent person.
    
>    Making the rules of evidence consistent with other violent crimes?
    
    	Problem here is that they *are*.  Recent (last 30 years) Supreme
    	Court decisions have put some very strict restrictions on how
    	ALL evidence can be collected and presented.  As you said,  the
    	problem is the same form murder, theft, arson, etc.
    
    
    	I view the main problem is that there are a *lot* of people out
    	there who are just not doing their job.  I had someone break
    	into my car about a month ago and steal about $500 worth of tools.
    	The police didn't even bother to come out.  The took the report
    	over the phone and for all I know threw it in the round-file.
    	D.A.s will not prosecurt unless they have an iron-clad case.
    	They have limited funding.  They want to be able to go to the
    	voters and brag about their convition rate.  They won't tell  you
    	the percentate that they plea-bargained or just plain didn't bother
    	with.  Judges don't like to have their decisions appealed and
        overturned.  They get a lot less hasstle for letting someone go.
    	Try to find a lawyer outside of the movies that will take on a 
    	judge or even another lawyer.  The last thing a lawyer wants is
    	to get hauled up against the diciplinary commission, or to have
    	to plead his next case to a judge who's p*ssed at him.  I know
    	a lawyer who was run out of three different cities because he
    	suddenly found he couldn't win *anything*.  Prisions are full.
    	Colorado just had to shell out $7M that it doesn't have to 
    	settle an ACLU lawsuit.  The LOTTO was billed and sold as a 
    	means to finance more prisions, then the Legislature raided the
    	funds.
    
    	Add that to the "victims" who won't even try...  I know.  Trying
    	against such a corrupt system is a b**ch.  Comming out in public
    	and screaming "rape" has some very bad and very unfair
        repercussions, but that's where the conviction starts.  Even if 
        you don't get a conviction, maybe you can make the perpetrator think 
        twice about the *next* time.
    
    	fred();

    	<I view the main problem is that there are a *lot* of people out
    	<there who are just not doing their job.  I had someone break
    	<into my car about a month ago and steal about $500 worth of tools.
    	<The police didn't even bother to come out.  The took the report
    
    I certainly concur that the above is part of the problem, and i'm not
    certain what the main problem is, but I disagree strongly that the main
    		     ^^^^					       ^^^^
    problem is that there are a *lot of people out there who are just not
    doing their job.
    
    I believe *one* important facet of it, is societal attitudes specifically
    about rape.

    re herb
    
    Find me 2 people that don't thing rape is a hideous crime.
    
    fred();

    I am not prepared to argue that AN (not THE, AN) important factor is
    society's attitude about rape. It is my opinion.
    
    Quite different though from saying the MAIN problem.
    
    To say that the main problem is a *lot* of people out there who are
    just not doing their job, followed immediately by an example of theft of
    goods from a car, is demeaning of the rape experience in a way that I
    would be surprised that you intended.

    The court system in general isnt doing its prepaid for job. Reguadless
    if they do a good job or a rotten job. They are paid. Thats what is
    really called,"Job Security."

    
    re .70
    
    I also have some serious dissagreement with the "blame men", or
    "blame sex", or "blame society" solutions.  They are not only
    not the real problem, but such activity is counterproductive
    to solving the real problem.
    
    Solutions that will have an affect are VOTE.  Throw the judges
    out of office.  In most states, County and District judges are
    elected officials.   In Colorado more judges *DIE* in office than
    are voted out.  D.A's are certainly elected officials as are
    state legislators and governors.  Mayors and City Council appoint
    and oversee the police departments.   Presidents and the Senate
    appoint the Supreme Court ( but Supreme Court judges tend to be
    on the same side of "Civil Liberties" and abortion, so take your
    pick).  But be prepared to shell out the $$$$$$$ for prisons,
    Courts, and police.
    
    fred();

>    I also have some serious dissagreement with the "blame men", or
>    "blame sex", or "blame society" solutions.  They are not only
>    not the real problem, but such activity is counterproductive
>    to solving the real problem.
 
With all due respect, I feel obliged to correct a prevalent misconception.
'Blaming society' is not quite accurate; understanding how society tolerates
and permits the continued prevalence of this crime, with a view to changing
that society when we've understood enough, is the aim.  'Blame' is useless;
'diagnosis and cure' is the goal.

DougO

    to paraphrase...
    "Don't blame men, they are not the real problem."

    who then are raping all the women?

    or is it your opinion that the core problem is NOT the men who are
    raping women but rather the system that doesn't respond apppropriately
    to law breakers, the system whose 'bad' officeholders 'rape' the rules
    so to speak.

    And your solution then to crime breaking in general is to replace those
    officeholders who don't punish the bad guys who break the laws (e.g
    rape, murder, theft of material from cars etc.) by good guys who WILL
    follow through and punish the bad guys. It that accurate?

    
    re .80
    
    >"Don't blame men, they are not the real problem."

    >who then are raping all the women?
    
    	By "men" I mean men in general.  There is *not* some big 
    	conspiricy to subjugate women by sending out "rapists"
    	to "keep women in there place".  
    
    >or is it your opinion that the core problem is NOT the men who are
    >raping women but rather the system that doesn't respond apppropriately
    >to law breakers, the system whose 'bad' officeholders 'rape' the rules
    >so to speak.
    
    	Now we're getting closer to the point.
    
    >And your solution then to crime breaking in general is to replace those
    >officeholders who don't punish the bad guys who break the laws (e.g
    >rape, murder, theft of material from cars etc.) by good guys who WILL
    >follow through and punish the bad guys. It that accurate?

    	YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    fred();
    

    On that note, I will leave it to somebody else to try to point out the
    implications in that thinking.
    But, in parting, let me make the following point...

    Your solution to the rampant crime in our society
    Your solution to the overcrowding of our jails
    Your solution to having more people per capita in jail than almost any
    other society

    is to find _more_ people guilty of crimes and put them in jail too. 

    				herb

    re .82
    
>    Your solution to the rampant crime in our society
>    Your solution to the overcrowding of our jails
>    Your solution to having more people per capita in jail than almost any
>    other society
>    is to find _more_ people guilty of crimes and put them in jail too. 
    
    and therein lies both the solution and *the* problem.
    
    fred():

    <and therein lies both the solution and *the* problem 
    
    Well, since the solution is a catch-22 might be worth while to consider
    alternative solutions.
    
    
    				herb

    
    I haven't seen any *realistic* laternative solutions.  Like I tell
    my customers--it isn't a kludge when it's the only realistic way
    to get there from here.
    
    The problem is that when it comes down to *paying* for more courts,
    prisons, police, etc and/or getting the current Courts, Police, 
    D.A.'s to do thier job people balk.  When it comes down to 
    "throwing the ba**ards out" people just keep re-electing the same
    ol' ba**ards.
    
    One exception was a case in Canon City (pronounced canyon) Co. a
    few years back.  An anistheisiologist (sp) was caught molesting
    his patients IN THE OPERATING ROOM.  He plead insanity.  There
    was a big controversy over whether he should be sent to the 
    State Hospital, where he could apply for release as "cured" in 
    a year or two, or sent to the pen'.   The judge sent him to
    the State Hospital.  A couple of months later, the judge came
    up for re-election.  To say he got "toasted" would be an
    understatement.  Unfortunately this is one of only two cases
    (that I can name anyway) where the judge was voted out of office.
    
    fred();	

    RE: Fred

    So, instead of BLAMING men, sex or society - we should BLAME judges
    and prosecutors (and per your words, we should "throw the ba**ards 
    out") - right?

    What makes you think that a whole new set of judges and prosecutors
    would be so dramatically different (enough to solve the problem)?

    As long as our culture regards it as appropriate to characterize a
    woman (in court or in a Senate Subcommittee hearing) as being unable
    to distinguish fantasy from reality (or being "nutty" or emotionally
    disturbed or "a lying bitch") SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE DARED TO MAKE A
    CHARGE AGAINST A MAN - we'll still have a problem, no matter how
    many times judges and prosecutors are changed.
    
    It's a cultural attitude problem that can not be BLAMED on judges
    and prosecutors alone.

    re -1
     
>    What makes you think that a whole new set of judges and prosecutors
>    would be so dramatically different (enough to solve the problem)?
    
    If the new bunch knows that the old bunch got thrown out for not
    doing their job.  I GUARANTEE they will be paying attention.
    
    fred();

    RE:  .87  Fred

    > If the new bunch knows that the old bunch got thrown out for not
    > doing their job.  I GUARANTEE they will be paying attention.

    Do you really think that these prospective judges and prosecutors
    will translate "doing their job" as "changing the cultural injustices
    W.R.T. rape cases?"

    I don't.  If they're worried about their futures/jobs, injustices
    to rape victims is probably the last thing they'll worry about.

    re susan
    
    If you got any better *realistic* ideas, let's hear them.  Who knows.
    
    fred();

    RE: .90  Fred
    
    > If you got any better *realistic* ideas, let's hear them.  Who knows.
    
    Fred, I'm sorry, but I don't see it as "realistic" AT ALL to throw out
    all (or most?) of the judges and prosecutors we have in the legal
    system now.  You're talking about "moving" a couple of hundred million
    people to vote in certain ways.  Politicians who spend hundreds of
    millions of dollars on election campaigns can't even do that.
    
    My suggestion is that we work on the cultural attitudes that make this
    a problem.  When some men in the Senate Subcommittee accept the
    premise that a distinguised Law Professor may not know fantasy from
    reality (SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE IS FEMALE) - it becomes pretty obvious
    that sexist stereotypes about women have become institutionalized.
    
    Yet - most of what we heard (when this happened last October) was
    in defense of Thomas.  Where were all the justice-seeking people
    who could have said, "WAIT A MINUTE!!!  THEY DECIDED TO ACCEPT THE
    IDEA (THAT AN ADULT WOMAN LAW PROFESSOR IS INCAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING
    FANTASY FROM REALITY) AS A REASON NOT TO BELIEVE HER????  WHAT A BUNCH
    OF SEXIST CRAP!"
    
    Even if a person believed that Thomas was innocent, a justice-seeking
    person STILL could have been appalled that such a sexist defense was
    accepted because the accuser happened to be a woman!
    
    It's clearly such attitudes that need to be fixed.  BLAMING judges
    and prosecutors won't accomplish this.

    Susanne,
    
    	If someone came up to you. You who were on a tenure with the state.
    And said your preformance out there stinks. And we are going to put
    you on warning, suspend you or fire you I think that you head set would
    change fast. I have seen judges out here fall off their seats drunken.
    I have seen judges sleep, I have seen judges throw out testimonie,
    evidence, and close and shut cases! Tell me, would you have thrown out
    Ann case? What was wrong with that judge? Drunk? Has his own personal
    adjenda? Didn't get enough kick back from someone?? 
    
    	Ann's case was clearly an open and shut based upon what testomonie
    she has told us here. I rather doubt that she is/was stretching any
    truth. Do you?
    
    George

    re susan
    
    Well, it sounds to me you don't really want to take any concrete action.
    It would ruin you martyrdom.  I don't see how you "change society" 
    has any reaistic chance of succeeding when you alienating more people
    than your convincing with you retoric.  Unless you think the feminist
    version of "the big lie" (if you say it often enought and loud enough
    then people start to believe it) will some day take hold.
    
    fred();

    First independent source...
    <When some men in the Senate Subcommittee accept the premise that a
    <distinguised Law Professor may not know fantasy from reality (SIMPLY
    <BECAUSE SHE IS FEMALE) 
    
    Second independent source.
    <Where were all the justice-seeking people who could have said, "WAIT A
    <MINUTE!!!  THEY DECIDED TO ACCEPT THE IDEA (THAT AN ADULT WOMAN LAW
    <PROFESSOR IS INCAPABLE OF DISTINGUISHING FANTASY FROM REALITY) AS A
    <REASON NOT TO BELIEVE HER????  WHAT A BUNCH OF SEXIST CRAP!"
    
    third independent source
    <...a justice-seeking person STILL could have been appalled that such a
    <sexist defense was accepted because the accuser happened to be a woman!
    
    ah, memories of Joe McCarthy
    				 herb

    re <got any better ideas>
    I think an important idea is education. Education for us men, education for
    our children, education for women.

    I am impressed with the way that some of the women who note here
    communicate their feelings. I think that when they (Jody, Annie, and
    oftentimes Bonnie) have something to say about this matter it often
    is instructive. Unfortunately, a number of the women, and a number of
    the men come across so angrily and with such distortions that their
    message isn't heard. What IS heard is anger, impatience, patronizing,
    sarcasm. None of those feelings are very effective, unless the intended
    effect is to raise hackles of course.

    When attempts at serious discourse get rat-holed as so many of the
    discussions in MENNOTES do, it is difficult for much learning to take
    place.
    				herb

    re .95
    
    >I think an important idea is education. Education for us men, education for
    >our children, education for women.
    
    Problem is that they've been getting too much "education" already.
    Education that *any* kind of discipline by parents is "abuse".
    Education that teachers can't control their classrooms.
    Education that society is full of %$#@.
    Education that if they commit even a serious crime that the chances
    are slim and none that they will pay any serious consequences.
    
    fred();
    

    	One thing that might help is to restore grand juries to their
    former power.  Years ago a person who considered themself to be a
    victim of a crime could insist that their case be considered by a grand
    jury.  If the jury thought that there was good reason to bring an
    indictment, the case would go to trial.  
    	Presently DAs determine which cases are heard by grand juries, and
    they don't let cases that they consider to be marginal even get heard. 
    If an individual had to go before a grand jury and defend his actions
    in some of the marginal cases even if no indictment were brought, the
    word would get out and such people would probably be inclined to alter
    their behavior.  In the present day people who are "pushing it" don't
    ever get any feedback until they've gone a long way past the line.
    						John
    

    That's an interesting idea, John. 
    If there is some way to ensure that 'frivilous' complaints be avoided
    -we are the most litigious society on earth- I kind of like it.

    A potential complication ...
    The rules of evidence are somewhat (rather?) different in grand jury
    cases.
    For instance, I understand, that the 'accused' rights of defense are
    substantially more modest.
    What would concern me would be those cases that came before the grand
    jury which were decided to have insufficient cause to bring forth to
    trial. The negative publicity could have grevious impact on innocent
    people.
    On the other hand, ... if the results were NOT made public...
    but that seems to be your intent, to publicize *accusations* correct?
    
    				herb

    	Only the investigations that result in indictments are made public. 
    That's the way it's always been.
    

    <only the investigations that result in indictments are made public>
    good, if so then doesn't sound like to bad an idea then!
    
    Where does that leave the following comment in .97?
    
    <...the marginal cases even if no indictment were brought, the
    <word would get out and such people would probably be inclined to alter
    <their behavior. 
    
    			herb

    RE: .93  Fred
    
    > Well, it sounds to me you don't really want to take any concrete action.
    
    How about some weekly updates from you about the action YOU will be
    taking to convince hundreds of millions of people in this country to
    oust all (or most) of the judges and prosecutors in this country?
    
    > It would ruin you martyrdom.
    
    The idea of changing cultural attitudes about women (and men) seems
    to be somewhat threatening to you.  Why is that?
    
    > I don't see how you "change society" has any reaistic chance of 
    > succeeding when you alienating more people than your convincing with 
    > you retoric.
    
    If you're going to use quotes, please quote what I actually wrote, Ok?
    
    In my lifetime, I've watched cultural attitudes change (especially in
    the past 25 years or so) about a number of different political and
    social issues.  Such change isn't unrealistic - it's inevitable.
    We need to work to change attitudes about the prosecution of rape
    (to end the "norm" of treating many/most rape victims in the same
    way Annie was treated.)
    
    > Unless you think the feminist version of "the big lie" (if you say it 
    > often enought and loud enough then people start to believe it) will 
    > some day take hold.
   
    Wait - we're talking about the injustices that rape victims are made
    to suffer.  You agree these injustices exist.
    
    Is it a "LIE" when feminists talk about the same injustices YOU talk 
    about (simply because of who they/we are?)  This sounds like part of
    the same attitude problem that causes the injustices we're talking
    about.
    
    If you get rid of all (or most) of the judges and prosecutors without
    changing cultural attitudes, you're bound to end up with another set
    of judges and prosecutors that perpetuate the same injustices (altho
    they may be worried enough about their jobs to keep from sleeping on
    the bench, etc.)
    
    > -< Then don't talk to me about how bad "the system" is >-
    
    If we don't start seeing progress reports about how you're going about
    the task of convincing hundreds of millions of people in our country
    to get rid of all (or most) of the judges and prosecutors in this
    country, then don't complain here anymore about how bad the court
    system is.

    RE: .92  George

    > I have seen judges out here fall off their seats drunken.
    > I have seen judges sleep, I have seen judges throw out testimonie,
    > evidence, and close and shut cases!

    Perhaps you could make this stop by getting all new judges (or warning
    the old ones.)  Would they change the way they handle rape cases?
    If anything, they'd be harder on rape victims (unless they knew that
    cultural attitudes towards rape prosecution had changed.)

    > Tell me, would you have thrown out Ann case? What was wrong with that 
    > judge? Drunk? Has his own personal adjenda? Didn't get enough kick back 
    > from someone?? 
    
    He was doing what most other judges in this country do in rape cases.
    As others have mentioned, Annie's case is the NORM rather than the
    exception (especially for "acquaintance rape.")  If it had gone to
    trial, the guy could have claimed they were having "rough sex" and
    that the vaginal tearing was caused by his extensive genital size
    (the way Mike Tyson's attorneys tried to get him off the hook in
    the rape trial against him.)

    In the end, it would have come down to Annie's word against the word
    of the rapist.  Many judges won't even let stranger_in_the_bushes rape
    cases come to trial - acquaintance rape cases are far rarer, unless
    the woman is very, VERY seriously injured (in which case, it's the
    physical beating that ends up being the crime.)

    If I were a judge, I'd do things differently (and would probably be
    thrown out for taking rape cases more seriously.)

    > Ann's case was clearly an open and shut based upon what testomonie
    > she has told us here. I rather doubt that she is/was stretching any
    > truth. Do you?
    
    She wasn't stretching the truth at all, IMO.  Most of the rape cases
    I've heard have been horrifying for the victim in one way or another.

    I know a woman who went through a rape trial (with conviction) in a
    case of "stranger rape" (she was badly beaten up during the rape by
    a man who stalked her outside) - and the defense attorney asked her
    if she'd had an orgasm during the rape (suggesting that it was just
    sex and therefore, possibly enjoyable to her.)  The court ALLOWED
    the question!

    Do courts allow questions to robbery or assault victims that suggest
    such a thing?  ("So, did it feel GOOD when the defendant beat you
    with a baseball bat, shot you in the stomach, then took all your
    money?")

    re. all
    
    I dealt with no judge.
    
    I dealt with 5 police officers, 2 Asst. DA's and the DA.  I was deemed
    entirely unworthy of taking up a judge's time.  The DA dropped the
    charges.
    
      Annie

    <I was deemed entirely unworthy of taking up a judge's time.  The DA
    <dropped the charges.
    
    Your case was deemed entirely unworthy of taking up a judge's time.
    ^^^^^^^^^
    I will omit the obvious compliment, because it feels out of place.
    
    
    			herb

    Then in the words of Mark Twain. Line em up and shoot them down like
    dogs. The DA was wrong, the police were wrong, you should be filing a
    charge agianst all of the above. If you have clear evidence, STILL,
    then its time to up the game and go for a civil suit agianst the city
    and the DA.
    
    George

    re .101
    
    >The idea of changing cultural attitudes about women (and men) seems
    >to be somewhat threatening to you.  Why is that?
    
    Well if you want to turn another note (this one is supposedly about
    trying to teach girls how to avoid putting themselves into situations
    where they *could* be raped) into femwarIII...
    
    Its disturbing to me when a group that so highly advocates "equal
    rights" starts demanding "priviliges" to correct some precieved
    problem.  Ie demanding that in in case of "one word against another"
    that a woman should be the one automatically assumed to be telling
    the truth, or that rape is a "special" crime in which women whould
    receive "special" considerations.
    
    Why is it that you do not want to even *try* taking some concrete
    and viable steps to correct the problems with "the system" rather
    than continue your hate campaign against men?  Could it be that
    you *want* women to continue to suffer so that they will support
    your hate campaign?
    
    fred();

    re .103
    
    >I dealt with 5 police officers, 2 Asst. DA's and the DA.  I was deemed
    >entirely unworthy of taking up a judge's time.  The DA dropped the
    >charges.
    
    I think my next step would have been to take an *active* part in the
    campaign of the DA's opponent inthe next election.  Telling everyone
    who would listen why.
    
    fred();

    Ann,
    
    	If the DA, and the local police are wrong, many times these folks,
    like doctors and lawyers carry liability insurance. Sue them and the 
    insurance goes up. Even if you loose the case. The mear fact that you
    bring forth a case agianst them will make them think twice about whats
    the what the second time around. Like hitting a cement wall with a
    sledge. You may not break the wall with the first swing. The second
    will certainly do the deed of getting them out of the game. 

    RE: .106  Fred
    
    >> The idea of changing cultural attitudes about women (and men) seems
    >> to be somewhat threatening to you.  Why is that?
    
    > Well if you want to turn another note (this one is supposedly about
    > trying to teach girls how to avoid putting themselves into situations
    > where they *could* be raped) into femwarIII...
    
    If you can discuss this subject without spewing all your hatred
    and anti-feminist prejudice at me, then we could get back to the
    matters at hand (or at least back to the most recent rathole
    involving how to fix "the system.")
    
    > Its disturbing to me when a group that so highly advocates "equal
    > rights" starts demanding "priviliges" to correct some precieved
    > problem.  Ie demanding that in in case of "one word against another"
    > that a woman should be the one automatically assumed to be telling
    > the truth, or that rape is a "special" crime in which women whould
    > receive "special" considerations.
    
    Your distortions about this are, indeed, disturbing.  Feminists aren't
    asking for these things any more than YOU are when YOU complain about
    the injustices (for the victims) involved in rape prosecution.
    
    Why is it ok for you to suggest that something be done to end these
    injustices, but feminists are in league with the devil (or whatever)
    when we say the same thing?
    
    > Why is it that you do not want to even *try* taking some concrete
    > and viable steps to correct the problems with "the system" rather
    > than continue your hate campaign against men? 
    
    You seem to think that kicking a bunch of people out of their jobs
    in the legal system (*IF* you could even make this happen) is the
    answer.  
    
    I have some concerns that this won't help.  How does your mind
    translate this concern to "she hates men"???  I'm talking about
    changing cultural attitudes.  Why does your prejudice prevent
    you from comprehending?
    
    > Could it be that you *want* women to continue to suffer so that they 
    > will support your hate campaign?
 
    Could it be that judges and prosecutors are merely a bunch of
    scapegoats that you would like to see fired to appease women
    (so that the real work of FIXING the problems involved with
    rape prosecution won't have to be addressed?)

    re .109
    
    >Your distortions about this are, indeed, disturbing.  Feminists aren't
    >asking for these things any more than YOU are when YOU complain about
    >the injustices (for the victims) involved in rape prosecution.
    
    Sure Susanne.  And I have a big tall piece of scrap iorn
    in Paris I'd like to sell.  Make you one very sepcial deal.
    
    fred();

    	Fred, Annie's case (if it had gone to trial) would have come
    	down to her word against his, wouldn't it?
    
    	They knew each other, and they were former lovers.  He could
    	have claimed they were rekindling old times and got a bit too
    	"enthusiastic" (which caused her injuries.)  He could have
    	said, "Hey, it's not like she was ever unconscious or anything.
    	She likes it rough sometimes, and never complained or asked me
    	to stop.  And I guess I'm just a bit too well-endowed for my
    	own good, so I hurt her a bit during penetration.  She didn't
    	complain about that either."
    
    	What evidence would Annie have had beyond her word about how
    	the injuries occurred (against HIS word)?
    
    	If you don't want women believed in these situations, then how
    	could a trial of Annie's case result in a conviction?
    
    	No one (including all the feminists I know) want women to
    	be believed AUTOMATICALLY (no matter what!) - but please
    	tell me how a case like Annie's could be won without
    	someone deciding that the accuser's  word should be believed 
    	over the accused rapist's word about what happened (at least
    	SOME of the time)?
    
    	If you argue that the word of a rape victim should NEVER be
    	taken as the deciding "proof" in a rape case, then Annie's
    	case would have been lost (in this circumstance) even if it
    	*had* gone to trial.

    re .112
    
   >	No one (including all the feminists I know) want women to
   > 	be believed AUTOMATICALLY (no matter what!) - but please
   > 	tell me how a case like Annie's could be won without
   > 	someone deciding that the accuser's  word should be believed 
   > 	over the accused rapist's word about what happened (at least
   > 	SOME of the time)?
    
    	Then how could it be won without violating the Civil
    	Rigts of the accused.
    
    	I have some prime swamp land in Florida I need to sell for
     	a tax writeoff.
    
    	fred();

    re.105
    
    The idea of a civil suit occurred to me at the time.  Numerous
    conversations with a couple of lawyers, plus a vivid understanding of
    the regional cultural demographics, convinced me that this was not a
    reasonable option.
    
    re.107
    
    The DA lost in the next election.  The Assistant DA's were not held
    over. While the good peopl of the county would not have gone so far as
    to support me in a suit [nice girls don't air their dirty linen in so
    public a place as a court-room], private conversations concerning my
    plight [with some pretty vivid transference going on concerning wives,
    daughters, and sisters ...] were quite effective.  Also, once I went
    fairly public it was amazing how many others were willing to have
    private conversations with friends/neighbors.
    
    The next DA wasn't much of an improvement wrt rape/sexual-assault -- at
    least so far a knowing one's assailant.  He actively pursued stranger
    rape.  I subsequently moved out of the area.  A few years later the
    DA's daughter was raped by a classmate and things got a bit easier to
    prosecute.  But then folks started mis-trusting him as someone with a
    'personal problem' with rape so he got voted out ...
    
      Annie

    RE: .113  Fred
    
    >> ...tell me how a case like Annie's could be won without
    >> someone deciding that the accuser's  word should be believed 
    >> over the accused rapist's word about what happened (at least
    >> SOME of the time)?
    
    > Then how could it be won without violating the Civil
    > Rigts of the accused.
    
    So, Fred -  if Annie's case had gone to trial and the man
    had been convicted, would you complain about how unfair the
    courts were to this man (and that the judges and prosecutors
    should all be fired so that the injustices against men accused
    of rape could be stopped)?
    
    I thought you were talking about the injustice to rape victims?
    
    Annie's evidence of physical injury could be "explained away"
    by the accused (UNLESS the jury believed her word over his about
    how the injuries occurred.)  Are you now saying that Annie's
    case was insufficient to prosecute and convict without violating
    the accused's civil rights?
    
    > I have some prime swamp land in Florida I need to sell for
    > a tax writeoff.
    
    Yeah, yeah, yeah.  I know you hate my guts and wish I would die
    this instant.  Who cares?
    
    Let's keep your hatred out of this, ok?

    re.113
    
    I'm not quite sure how believing the accuser over the accused violates
    the accused's civil rights.  
    
    Corroborating evidence comes into play.  Reasonable doubt will either
    be present or not. Isn't this what judges and juries decide?
    
    

    
>    Let's keep your hatred out of this, ok?
    
    Sure.  If we can keep you hypocrisy and hate campaign out of it.
    
    fred();

    Annie:

    I have been thinking about your case, that of date rape more generally,
    and also of marital rape.

    I'm afraid I have to say something that is unpleasant (to me).
    I am not unsympathetic to the DAs and the cops. I think they probably
    saw it as a very weak case. (as distinct from not believing you)

    First, I will make two assumptions.
    a) the police and DAs knew that you had been what "an item"
    b) the police and DAs knew that you had been voluntarily intimate in the
       past.

    It is difficult to find someone guilty of rape under ANY circumstances,
    let alone the circumstances of those two assumptions. 

    So maybe they can be accused of insensitivity, maybe they can be
    accused of being chauvinistic pigs; nevertheless, I think the DAs used
    pretty good probabilistic judgement. I think the odds on conviction
    would have been very long.

    District Attorneys make judgement every day about which cases to try
    and which cases to not try. Part of the decision is sometimes about
    "what's the likelihood of winning" or less baldly "how good is the case
    for the prosecution". (e.g. that's why so many mafiosi are found guilty
    of tax evasion?)

    I have two brothers. I am trying to get some sense of what would be the
    result if one of us siblings showed up at a police station, all black
    and blue and bloody etc, and attempted to file assault and battery
    charges against one of the other brothers. (May not even be relevant). 

    I wonder whether perhaps there a common feeling in the judicial system
    that the accusation of rape is sometimes used as a "political" weapon?

    Just as the charge of child abuse is now sometimes being seen as a
    legal gambit to improve a divorce settlement.

    				herb
    

    re .114
    
    Right on!
    
    				h

    I think it is the DA's responsibility to be somewhere near confident
    there IS enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. If (s)he is not
    so confident they have something like a professional responsibility
    *not* to go trial. A professional responsibility that (i suppose) may
    in some cases be superceded by political considerations.
    
    If the DA ain't comfortable that that is the situation then (probably)
    no trial.
    And once there is a trial ...
    A priori, the defendant's word should always be believed over the
    					  ^^^^^
    plaintiff's word, until and unless facts are brought into evidence 
    that support the plaintiff's charge. Notice I did not say "that
    refute the defendant's assertions". The defendant is not even obliged
    to say "I didn't do it". The burden of proof is greater than
    proving the defendant false, it is necessary to prove (to whatever
    level of certainty is indicated) that the plaintiff is right.
    

    I'm going to put my listening ears on as best I can tyo see if the men
    in this conference can come up with a realistic plan for rape
    avoidance for women.  The bitter information that follows is just my
    filters coming up and isn't meant to be a flame, just frustration:
    
    With Annie's revelations and a few others that I know of, it still
    strikes me that the safest way to protect my self and daughters is to
    never be alone or intimate with any man, other than perhaps their
    fathers.   (and with what has been going on with a freind's daughter,
    I'm not sure that is safe.)  This isn't hatred of men; it is fear, and
    the knowlege that men will support men against women in the case of
    rape, whether stranger or aquaintance.  That women are so brainwashed
    that they can be even harder judges of other women's behaviour than
    some of the comments in here by men.

    RE: .117  Fred
    
    > Sure.  If we can keep you hypocrisy and hate campaign out of it.
    
    We're going to have difficulty discussing these issues if you can't
    stop stereotyping me via your prejudices about feminists.
    
    I'm not advocating hating anyone, but I do disagree with you about
    the best solution for the current injustices against rape victims.
    
    If we clear out the existing judges and prosecutors without changing
    the cultural attitudes in our society, what assurance do we have
    that the next batch wouldn't do the same as the old batch when it
    comes to rape cases?  (Can you answer this question or not?)
    
    Let's stick to these issues, now - ok?

    Fred, do you believe that a jury should EVER believe a woman's word
    against an accused rapist's word in a rape trial (and I'm talking
    about a case where the two disagree about how to interpret the
    physical evidence, including something like vaginal tearing)??
    
    In the absence of a second witness, should all accused rapists go
    free if the woman has not *also* sustained serious injuries?

    
    re .122
    
    >I'm not advocating hating anyone, but I do disagree with you about
    >the best solution for the current injustices against rape victims.
    
    > Let's stick to these issues, now - ok?
    
    And can I interest anyone in some prime beach front property near
    Phoenix?   I believe *you* were the one screeching about Clarence
    Thomas et al.
    
    >If we clear out the existing judges and prosecutors without changing
    >the cultural attitudes in our society, what assurance do we have
    >that the next batch wouldn't do the same as the old batch when it
    >comes to rape cases?  (Can you answer this question or not?)
    
    Ask them before supporting.  Then if they don't carry through,
    get rid of *them*.  I guarantee you that sooner later they will
    get the message.  I know from first hand experience.  When I went
    for my second custody hearing I got the same judge I had in the first.
    Just so happened that he was up for re-election.  I went after him
    with my picket sign.  Court house, street corners, the news media
    wanted to know who would *dare* go after this judge and why and gave
    me some coverate.  He got re-elected but by 20% less of the vote
    than the other judges the were up.  He had to disqualify himself
    from my case because he now had a personal interest in *me*.  The
    second judge that was assigned to my case was transferred to another
    court, the third judge disquallified himself *without comment* before
    he even got started, and the fourth paid attention to what I had to
    say ( and my daughter ) and gave me custody.  Did my campaign have
    anything to do with all of this?  Can't say for sure.  But I believe
    it did.
    
    Saw a news report on TV the other night that said that rape
    prosecutions were higher in districts with female DA's.  However
    also said that the DA in the W.K. Smith trial was incompetent.  Not
    because she was a female, just a bad lawyer.
    
    fred();

    re .123
    
    >Fred, do you believe that a jury should EVER believe a woman's word
    >against an accused rapist's word in a rape trial (and I'm talking
    >about a case where the two disagree about how to interpret the
    >physical evidence, including something like vaginal tearing)??
   
    >In the absence of a second witness, should all accused rapists go
    >free if the woman has not *also* sustained serious injuries?

    In the absence of cooberating evidence.  Where it is *just* her
    word agains his, then the *defendent* has the right to pre-disposed
    belief (in *any* criminal case--even murder).  This not only my 
    openion, but the openion of the Supreme Court, Bill of Rights, etc.
    
    The rules of how evidence can be collected and presented have been
    made *very* strict by the Supreme Court ( again in *all* criminal
    cases).  Personally I have some very negative openions of some of
    these rules, but right now **that's life**.  The way that some
    of these rules are, it's amazing sometimes that *anyone* is ever
    convicted of *anything*.   
    
    However,  If you can bring in cooberating evidence, second witnesses,
    etc, and show guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" (again Bill of Rights
    and Supreme Court) , the by all means put the s.o.b. away for a *long* 
    time.  
    
    But one more time YOU CAN'T SUCCEED *unless* you TRY DAMMIT.  There
    are NO guarantees except the one that *nothing* will happen unless
    you try.
    
    fred();

RE:  Note 762.123 LAVETA::CONLON 

>    Fred, do you believe that a jury should EVER believe a woman's word
>    against an accused rapist's word in a rape trial (and I'm talking
>    about a case where the two disagree about how to interpret the
>    physical evidence, including something like vaginal tearing)??

This is done all the time.  The jury has to decide who is telling the truth.
And sometimes, the jury is wrong.

But if you believe that a woman's word should be taken as gospel, then you're
out to lunch.

Innocent men have much to fear from women in rape trials.  Some women are very
convincing.  Some lawyers do their jobs poorly, and the jury is sometimes taken
back by the false testimony of a sobbing woman that sits on the stand and
spreads her... lies.  Yes, it can happen both ways.  I'm just saying that
everytime a woman cries 'rape' that it ain't so.  I'm not taking sides.  I'm
just saying it goes both ways and their ain't no fixes for it.  It all comes
down to who is the most convincing.

    RE: .124  Fred
    
    > I believe *you* were the one screeching about Clarence Thomas et al.
    
    My God - how did I *dare* bring up another example of the cultural
    attitude I was describing to you in my previous note?  I have
    some nerve, I guess.  :-}
    
    > Ask them before supporting.  Then if they don't carry through,
    > get rid of *them*.  I guarantee you that sooner later they will
    > get the message.  
    
    If a judge or prosecutor believes that being fair to rape victims
    will help get him/her elected, then I agree that it would change
    the new judge or prosecutors behavior (BECAUSE a change in attitude,
    on a community level at least, would have taken place.)
    
    I'm not at all against the idea of getting rid of all (or most) of
    the current judges and prosecutors.  I'm sure it would have all
    sorts of other benefits.  I simply don't believe that it would
    necessarily help fix the injustices to rape victims without a
    change in cultural/community attitudes.
    
    > I went after him with my picket sign.  Court house, street corners, 
    > the news media wanted to know who would *dare* go after this judge 
    > and why and gave me some coverate.  He got re-elected but by 20% 
    > less of the vote than the other judges the were up. 
    
    Fred, if a rape victim picketed against a prosecutor or judge, she'd
    be called insane (or hysterical or a vindictive bitch.)  The prosecutor
    or judge would either laugh at her or would express profound pity for
    her (suggesting that she's badly in need of psychiatric help.)
    
    > ...and the fourth paid attention to what I had to say ( and my daughter )
    > and gave me custody.  Did my campaign have anything to do with all of 
    > this?  Can't say for sure.  But I believe it did.
    
    I'd be willing to bet it did, too.
    
    I also bet that a rape victim who tried doing the same thing (picketing,
    etc.) would be treated far worse for having done this.
    
    > Saw a news report on TV the other night that said that rape
    > prosecutions were higher in districts with female DA's.  However
    > also said that the DA in the W.K. Smith trial was incompetent.  Not
    > because she was a female, just a bad lawyer.
    
    The prosecutor in the WKS trial was out-matched by the $2,000,000
    defense that Willie could afford.  Courts have since figured out
    that if a rich guy with an unlimited amount of money to spend on
    lawyers is accused of rape, it's time to enlist the aid of a 
    prosecutor who is more accustomed to working in this situation.

    RE: .125  Fred
    
    > In the absence of cooberating evidence.  Where it is *just* her
    > word agains his, then the *defendent* has the right to pre-disposed
    > belief (in *any* criminal case--even murder).  
    
    What happens when the defendant has an explanation for the physical
    evidence?  As a hypothetical example, what if a woman with torn
    clothing reported a rape and the man said that she consented to
    sex but then tore her own clothing as a way to charge him with
    rape after an argument?
    
    They both agree that penetration took place (and the physical
    evidence supports this.)  She may claim that he pinned her down
    (which doesn't usually cause visible injuries) and tore her
    clothes - then he could claim that they argued and she tore her
    OWN clothes and charged him with rape in anger.
    
    Now it's down to her word against his.  Who should the jury
    believe?  (Do torn clothes make or break a rape case?)

    RE: .126  Dwight Berry
    
    > But if you believe that a woman's word should be taken as gospel, 
    > then you're out to lunch.
    
    No, of course, I don't believe this.  I've never said I believe this.

    RE: .125  Fred
    
    Something else about your note...
    
    > But one more time YOU CAN'T SUCCEED *unless* you TRY DAMMIT.  There
    > are NO guarantees except the one that *nothing* will happen unless
    > you try.
    
    You've repeated this "TRY DAMMIT" advice to rape victims over and
    over in this topic - and I wonder why.
    
    Your experience has to do with getting custody of your children.
    
    I could understand it if you yelled at other men to "TRY DAMMIT"
    when they describe the pain of not having custody of their children.
    I haven't noticed you yelling at men to "TRY DAMMIT," though.
    You only keep yelling it to women who have been raped.
    
    I wonder why you would want to yell at women who have already
    been raped by someone else who probably yelled at them during
    the crime, too.  Obviously, you believe strongly that women
    should prosecute/testify after being raped, but these repeated
    ORDERS to rape victims to "TRY DAMMIT" sound like verbal slaps
    on the face.
    
    Why do you keep doing this (to these particular people)?

    re .121
    yup it's the safest way. Also ensures that your daughters do not
    contribute to the pool of males (or females) in the next generation.
    
    <realistic plan for rape avoidance for women>
    I don't think you are going to find such a plan in this discussion.
    This discussion has not been about teaching rape avoidance skills since
    around about entry #4 (with a coupla very slight divergences back on
    topic)
    
    					herb

  WRT the question ...and... since I am *way* behind here, please forgive me
  if I am a bit repetitive...

  We need to teach our young womyn to be aware that the risks of being raped is
  *very* real. That certain behaviors decrease or increase the risk. That going
  to alone to a bar and leaving with a stranger increases the risk, even if
  that *stranger* is a well known icon of the comunity. That there are men out
  there who perceive certain modes of dress, conversation, etc, as inviting sex
  and will act based upon this assumption, no matter how much the womyn may say
  she doesn't. That making out with a man to sexual arousal, and then saying
  'NO', is cruel. And that if she does *not* want sex, then she should *not*
  engage in petting and/or sex talk. We need to teach our young womyn that they
  have the *right* to say 'NO' and mean it. We also need to teach our young
  womyn that it's okay to say 'Yes' too.

  We've already agreed that rape is wrong and that no matter how the womyn
  dresses, no matter what the womyn does, she does *NOT* deserve to be raped.
  However, this does not change the *very* real fact that certain behaviors,on
  the womyn's part can increase the chance of her getting raped.

  As many have said before, and I agree, it sucks. It really does. Still, life
  is not fair and we have to play by life's rules and be as proactive as we can
  possibly be to change those rules. True, there are no *GUARANTEES*, yet, to
  remain ignorant or defiant in the face of the rules as they are today, is to
  risk losing all that is dear. For once one has been raped, no amount of logic
  or reasoning is going to unrape that person. 

    re:.128

    If there's no other evidence else to consider, acquit.

    RE: .133  Mike Z.
    
    >> What happens when the defendant has an explanation for the physical
    >> evidence?  As a hypothetical example, what if a woman with torn
    >> clothing reported a rape and the man said that she consented to
    >> sex but then tore her own clothing as a way to charge him with
    >> rape after an argument?
    
    > If there's no other evidence else to consider, acquit.
    
    If the courts do this, then it makes all physical evidence of rape
    meaningless (as long as the rapist can think up some excuse to try
    to explain it away, and as long as the victim's injuries aren't too
    serious so that the rapist can claim they were self-inflicted as
    part of an alleged 'false rape charge.')
    
    So - it comes down to the idea that the testimony of a woman should
    not be enough to convict a man in a rape case if he says he didn't
    do it (and makes some other claim with regard to the physical evidence.)
    
    While I do NOT support the idea that all women's words should be taken
    as gospel (over men's words) in rape cases, I do believe that an
    individual woman's word should be taken over the man's if her account
    is more believable than his - and vice versa (ie, his word should be
    taken over hers if his account is more believable.)
    
    If both parties are equally believable, then, yes, I support the idea
    that the man should be acquitted.

.134>      -< Should a guilty person be acquitted for making up good excuses? >-
    
    Two words in the above are presumptuous, so I'll answer your
    question as phrased, and also the one I believe you intended
    to ask.
    
    No, a guilty person should never be acquitted.
    
    However, someone on trial should always be acquitted if they
    have a credible alibi for all the physical evidence.
    
    Would you have it any other way?

    RE: .135  
    
    > However, someone on trial should always be acquitted if they
    > have a credible alibi for all the physical evidence.
    
    If the accuser's testimony about the physical evidence is MORE
    credible than the accused's, then the person on trial should
    be convicted.
    
    > Would you have it any other way?
    
    I recall a case (some years back) where a woman was accused of murder
    when her boyfriend was found stabbed to death in his car (and her
    fingerprints were on the knife.)  She claimed that the man decided
    to commit suicide while they were arguing and stabbed himself in
    the chest with her sitting next to him in the car.  She said she
    touched the knife at some point during his suicide.
    
    Hey, it's *possible* for someone to stab himself in the chest.  
    The jury didn't buy it, though.  She was convicted.
    
    When a jury listens to an accused rapist describe how the woman got
    mad at something he said or did and tore her own clothing (and 
    inflicted minor injuries on herself) - the jury has the right to
    decide that his story is less believable than the accuser's story
    and to convict the man (based on taking the woman's word over his.)

    RE: .136  Suzanne,
    
                        I agree with what you say but I also believe that
    you are right on the very edge here.  If I were on a jury and the
    arguments came down to her against him, I would be very careful before
    I decided taking her story over his for the reason of the jail
    sentence.  The charge given by the judge usually includes instructing
    the jury that it requires a prepondance of evidence to convict.  IMHO
    the "scales of justice" must tilt enough to really "see" before you
    take the chance of sending someone to jail and a possibility of ruining
    a life.  Yes I agree that the woman deserves consideration also for her
    pain and suffering but there really should be more evidence to convict
    than just her word against his.  
    
    
    Dave 

    Interesting ... I said credible alibi, yet your two examples are
    of incredible alibis.
    
    Is there a relevance here that I'm missing?

.138> the jury that it requires a prepondance of evidence to convict.
    
    A civil case requires a preponderance of the evidence, that is
    to simply believe the charged is guilty, but a criminal case
    requires much more - the jury must believe the accused is guilty
    beyond a reasonable doubt.
    
    This increased burden of proof is not accidental.

    Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict even in a capital
    crime like murder.  The principle of preponderance of evidence is used.
    In other words, a preponderance of circumstantial evidence is sufficient 
    to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
    							- Vick

    As Vick said, people *are* convicted of crimes (even the crime of 
    murder) based on circumstantial evidence (even when defendants 
    claim the evidence should be interpreted some other way.)
    
    Circumstantial evidence is regarded as "beyond a reasonable doubt"
    in our legal system.
    
    If the physical evidence supports the accuser's testimony but the
    accused ALSO presents an accounting of the physical evidence that
    differs from the accuser's testimony, the jury must decide which
    person's testimony is more believable.
    
    If the jury believes the accuser, then this qualifies as "beyond
    a reasonable doubt."
    
    In murder trials, it's not uncommon for a defendant to claim that the
    killing was done in self-defense.  In the absence of living witnesses
    to the killing, does the jury simply take the person's word for it
    and acquit simply because s/he made this claim?  
    
    No, they don't.  The accused's story has to be very credible on its
    own (even WITHOUT conflicting testimony from another witness.)  If
    they don't believe the story, the person can be convicted.
    
    Why should rape cases give special privs (to those accused) that aren't 
    given in trials for other types of crimes?

.140>  Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict even in a capital
.140>  crime like murder.  The principle of preponderance of evidence is used.
.140>  In other words, a preponderance of circumstantial evidence is sufficient 
.140>  to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
    
    1. Circumstantial evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt
       are unrelated and not mutually exclusive or inclusive.
    
    2. A preponderance of the evidence can certainly be significant
       enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, but it
       is not enough, in and of itself.  Why confuse the issue?

    RE: .137
    
    > Interesting ... I said credible alibi, yet your two examples are
    > of incredible alibis.
    
    > Is there a relevance here that I'm missing?
    
    In a rape case, the only physical evidence available is usually the
    state of the victim's body and clothes.
    
    Unless the accuser is seriously injured, the accused in an "acquaintance
    rape" case has the opportunity to claim that the accuser simply "got mad"
    and harmed herself and her clothes as part of a false charge.
    
    Therefore, even if the physical evidence supports the accuser's story,
    the accused may claim something different about the same evidence.
    
    If the accuser's story is more credible than the accused's story, then
    it's proper for the jury to decide to convict the accused (based on the
    credibility of the accuser's testimony) in the same way that convictions
    occur in other types of crimes.

    RE: .142  
    
    > 1. Circumstantial evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt
    >    are unrelated and not mutually exclusive or inclusive.
    
    Circumstantial evidence *has* been used (many, many times) to
    arrive at a guilty verdict ("beyond a reasonable doubt") - as
    you know.
    
    > 2. A preponderance of the evidence can certainly be significant
    >    enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, but it
    >    is not enough, in and of itself.  Why confuse the issue?
    
    The issue isn't being confused.  
    
    In a case where the circumstantial evidence convinces a jury that a
    defendant is guilty, they don't give the defendant some kind of
    "benefit of the doubt" simply because he denies having committed
    the crime (unless his testimony actually CREATES a reaonable doubt
    in the minds of the jurors.)
    
    If the accuser's testimony is more credible than the testimony of
    the accused (even if they disagree about how the accuser's body
    and clothes got into a certain state,) it should be enough to find 
    the accused guilty ("beyond a reasonable doubt") in the same way
    that it is enough for a guilty verdict in other types of crimes.

    Why are you misreading what I'm writing?
    
    I say "credible alibi" you talk about a woman who says her husband
    stabbed himself to death.
    
    Of course circumstantial evidence has been used to convict people
    of crimes. So has physical evidence. The rules of evidence are
    unrelated to rthe concepts "preponderance of the evidence" and
    "beyond a reasonable doubt."
    
    Now, back to the point you raised ... in light of credible alibis
    for all the evidence, should a jury acquit, convict, or do you need
    more information to decide?

    I must be speaking in tongues.

    RE: .145
    
    > Why are you misreading what I'm writing?
    
    > I say "credible alibi" you talk about a woman who says her husband
    > stabbed himself to death.
    
    We were talking about an accuser and an accused having different
    stories about the SAME physical evidence, Mike.  I offered another
    example of a defendant offering another explanation for physical
    evidence, that's all.
    
    By the way, I don't think that "alibi" is the correct term to use 
    when a defendant offers different testimony about what occurred 
    *at the scene of the alleged crime* than the accuser's testimony.
    
    > Now, back to the point you raised ... in light of credible alibis
    > for all the evidence, should a jury acquit, convict, or do you need
    > more information to decide?
    
    Back to the point I *really* raised...
    
    If the accuser and the accused offer *differing* testimony about the
    physical evidence, the jury should decide which person's story is MORE
    credible.  If the accuser's story is more credible than the accused's
    story, then the jury should base a conviction on the accuser's testimony
    (even though it means they are taking "her word against his" in this
    situation.)

    For the record, formal conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not
    the automatic sequel if the jury votes, even unanimously, for a guilty
    verdict.  In 1983, in Essex Superior Court (Massachusetts), James
    Preston was convicted by a jury of having murdered with premeditation a
    woman named Thea Pierce.  The evidence, both physical and
    circumstantial, was overwhelming - not only that he had indeed killed
    her but also that there was premeditated intent to protect himself from
    a charge of tampering with the U.S. Mails, for which charge Pierce was
    the government's star witness.
    
    The judge overturned the verdict, stating that in his opinion the state
    had not proven its case.  On appeal, the case went back to trial but,
    in consequence of the Fifth Amendment, as a second-degree case.  IMHO,
    justice was not served by the first judge's arrogation to himself of
    the right to determine whether the jury were properly convinced.
    
    -dick

    Why in the world is it so necessary to fabricate "end point" conditions
    and use them as if they were representative?
    It is almost as if it is more important to disagree than to agree for
    some unfathomable(to me) reason.
    
    
    				herb

    I agree that this topic has strayed far from mere discussion of 
    avoidance skills.  But the fact the a discussion of avoidance veered 
    to blame, fairness, evidence, et al. is indicative of what those 
    who've been raped face.

    At present, blame continues to attach itself to those whose avoidance 
    skills are 'just not good enough' ... sometimes these skills are 
    absent entirely.

    No one deserves to be raped.  I think we have near-consensus on that.  

    Realistically, I believe that taking personal responsibility for 
    oneself and strong self-worth are the best 'rape avoidance skills' 
    that can be taught. This personal responsibility covers a spectrum 
    from using good judgement to some ability to defend oneself. The 
    self-worth/self-confidence is harder to come by in a society that 
    enforces the relative lesser value of women.

    I am fairly ego-strong in that I have strength of conviction and a 
    fair amount of self-confidence.  Yet, it was devestating to me  not to
    be believed when I said I was raped [never mind by whom] with  the
    physical evidence I presented.  Girls and women watched closely  and
    carefully and the lesson of 'you will not be believed' was  reinforced.

    Then again, it is _extremely_ important to teach that sometimes the 
    best precautions fail.  They did with me.  Is it bad judgement to have 
    an old friend to dinner in the company of your fiance?  Is it
    irresponsible to be tutored in self-defense techniques?  Is it alluring
    or provacative to be dressed in clean grey sweats in your own living 
    room?  Is it risky to be absolutely sober in the presence of a
    non-drinker? 

    In hindsight, it would appear so; yet, it is not practical -- not 
    'realistic' -- to eschew all contact with other human beings in order 
    to avoid harm.  Even that isn't 100%, as 100% isolation is a virtual 
    impossibility.

    So, realistically, I believe that rape victims as a general rule 
    should be believed when they say they've been raped -- just as mugging 
    victims are believed -- until such time as the facts and evidence bear 
    a different interpretation.  Innocent of malice until proved otherwise,
    as it were.

    I believe that the rape victim -- just as the mugging victim -- can 
    offer powerful eye-witness testimony as to who the perpetrator of the 
    crime was.  This does _NOT_ equate to a presumption of guilt.  _If_ 
    I'd gone to trial [and I agree, herb, that it would have been 
    virtually un-winnable] and the jury had returned a 'not guilty' 
    verdict against the accused, it still would not alter the fact that 
    I'd been raped.

    From my point of view, a rapist would have walked free.  [from my 
    point of view, he did ] But that doesn't mean that the system wouldn't
    have worked.

    Many crimes go un-prosecuted or un-solved, but that does not erase 
    that they occurred. 

    So I suppose, in a roundabout way, I _do_ blame society.  But I'm a 
    part of that society and working very hard to correct the wrongs I 
    see.  I'm working very hard to change the perception that a rape 
    victim is to blame for not running fast enough or fighting hard 
    enough.  I'm fighting to ease the burdens of shame that rape victims 
    are forced to carry, to create a strong awareness in these victims 
    that they are not criminals or unclean.

    I also state, categorically, that 'yes' and 'no' are to mean 'yes' and 
    'no' and that the verbal and non-berbal messages should be consistent.
    There is little safety if they are not.
    
      Annie

    re .-1
    <but the fact the a discussion of avoidance veered to blame, fairness,
    <evidence, et al. is indicative of what those who've been raped face.
    Yup, particularly since most of the diversions were created by men.

    <So, realistically, I believe that rape victims as a general rule 
    <should be believed when they say they've been raped -- just as mugging 
    <victims are believed -- until such time as the facts and evidence bear 
    <a different interpretation.
    <Yet, it was devestating to me  not to be believed when I said I was
    <raped 
    that's why i felt it was important to say i believe you
    
    <should be believed when they say they've been raped
    And I believe that the man you identified as the rapist is the man who
    raped you! 
    I could not say that if I were serving as a juror on the trial of the
    alleged rapist. At the INSTANT a person is accused of a crime, belief
    MUST be suspended. It devolves upon the court to prove (to whatever
    level of certainty) ...

    		a) that a crime was committed (the jury can no longer even 
    		   _believe_ that you have been raped)
    		b) that the person accused of the crime, committed the
    		   crime
    
    At that point, _belief_ is no longer the operative word, instead a
    _judicial_ process has been started.

    				herb

    Re .151
    
    Annie, thank you for your notes.  It can't be easy.
    
    aq
    

    re.152
    
    >The jury can no longer 'believe' that <person> had been raped.
    
    I strongly disagree.  If fact, I believe that this automatic suspension
    of the crime itself is _extremely_ harmful.  Re-prove that the crime
    occurred and only _then_ make a case that the accused is the
    perpetrator?
    
    A couple years ago Gregory Smart was murdered.  Last year his wife
    stood trial for that murder.  The prosecution did not have to prove
    again that a man had been murdered, only that the accused had
    commissioned the crime.
    
    If we were discussing something that could be remotely construed as
    fast talk and later regrets, I might tend to agree with you.  But if
    we are talking about brutal incidents such as what I endured, you've
    lost me.
    
      Annie

    re .-1
    
    I don't understand whether you are challenging my understanding of the
    way things are; or are saying they shouldn't be that way.
    
    Could you elaborate, please?
    
    			h

    I'm not challenging your understanding of anything, herb.
    You are quite correct in stating that, the way things stand at present,
    in court the rape victim must prove that the crime occured before being
    allowed to go on to the culpability of the accused.
    
    In cases similar to mine, I feel that such a requirement is ludicrous.
    
    Had there been an investigation it would have become clear that 'rough
    sex' was decidedly _not_ on my list, let alone the sort of sex that
    would result in tearing, concussion, bloody toothmarks, etc.  A cursory
    examination would have shown that there was no scar-tissue present
    consistent with previous tearing trying to accomodate a man of
    excessive endowment.  To come to the conclusion that the crime of rape
    had been committed would not be a huge leap.
    
    This says _nothing_ about whether or not the man I identified as my
    assailant was the culprit.  Even if rape is proved it doesn't mean that
    there is sufficient evidence to support my claim that he did it.  He
    may not go to trial.  Even if the evidence is sufficient to bind him
    over for trial, this doesn't prove that he did it.
    
    Yes, there are cases where proving that a crime has occurred is
    imperative ... some deaths could be either accidental or murder, some
    rapes cases don't present clear-cut evidence of battery and forcible
    penetration, some apparent assaults are prompted by self-defense  ...
    but a blanket "prove that a rape occurred" rule in the face of
    overwhelming physical evidence, simply because the charge is rape, is
    inhuman.
    
      Annie

    re .130 
    
    >I wonder why you would want to yell at women who have already
    >been raped by someone else who probably yelled at them during
    >the crime, too.  Obviously, you believe strongly that women
    >should prosecute/testify after being raped, but these repeated
    >ORDERS to rape victims to "TRY DAMMIT" sound like verbal slaps
    >on the face.
    
    When the going gets tough, let someone else do the dirty work?
    
    Susan, You've beent the one doing the yelling here.  Can you
    say hypocrit?
    
    >Why do you keep doing this (to these particular people)?
    
    Because, as I've said repeatedly, conviction of a rapist starts
    with the victim.  If the victim does not try, the *nobody* else
    can do *anything*.  The rest of the "injustices" are a moot point.
    
    fred();

    fred,
    
    Have you entirely missed that many, many, _many_ women do try?
    
    With severely limited success?
    
    But women still try and try and try?
    
    For myself, you verbal abuse calls up the taunting, jeering 'JUST TRY
    BITCH!!!' ... not an un-common thing for the recently raped to hear.
    
    I don't believe that you mean to taunt or jeer.  By the same token,
    your abrasive shouting at the victimised to haul their torn and
    bleeding little carcasses off into battle pronto is about as effective
    as a Marine DI demanding 50 push-ups of a quadraplegic.
    
    OF _COURSE_ rape victims must try!  And we _DO_DAMMIT!
    
    The magnitude of the backlash and the fears exhibited isn't a
    coincidence ...
    

    RE: .158  Annie
    
    Agreed 100%!!!
    
    
    RE: .157  Fred
    
    > When the going gets tough, let someone else do the dirty work?
    
    Rape victims *are* "someone else" (to those yelling at them.)

    Good that we have the same understanding that the current facts are
    that there is a requirement to prove rape at a trial
    just for clarification re "challenging".
    I meant that word to be non-hostile, just disagreeing , as in you
    saying something of the sort "it is not the case that proving rape is
    required." would be 'challenging' my positon.
    I don't have much comment as to whether it is often ludicrous to prove
    -again-, if indeed it had already been proven, that a rape took place.
    It seems as though that is just standard trial process, i certainly
    don't feel wedded to the notion that it is NEVER superfluous. Unless
    possibly that would make the trial process for this particular crime
    different from the trial process for all other crimes.
    Is it the case that that aspect of our discussion of a trial process is
    central to your feelings, or was it perhaps just sort of a 'sidebar'?
    
    a parenthetical remark...
    Contusions, concussions, bloody toothmarks etc. (everthing EXCEPT the
    vaginal tearing) could PLAUSIBLY be unconnected to intercourse.
    That is to say that it is PLAUSIBLE that the semen/hairs could have
    occured indepently of the signs of violence. Just as a possible
    example, voluntary sex could have taken place (because of the vaginal
    tearing that would seem not to be plausible in YOUR case) _followed_ by
    violence with him or EVEN with somebody else. N.B. i am not saying it
    is likely, just plausible. So that assault and battery COULD be (have
    been) totally separate from the intercourse. Perhaps the connectedness
    of the 'battle scars' to the intercourse would need to be proven? And
    AGAIN, this is all in the context of I BELIEVE YOU.
    A 'cracker jack' defense lawyer might have his client acknowledge the
    violence but assert that the violence was apart from the sex, or even
    acknowledge the sex but deny the violence completely. (on the
    assumption(?) that voluntary sex followed by battery is less of a crime
    than battery WITH involuntary sex.
    
    				h

    re Susan and Annie
    
    I am responding to the tyrade that so many women don't bother
    trying because it is *so* hard.
    
    The problems with obtaining convition in rape case are the
    same problem in trying to get conviction in *ANY* criminal
    case.  It is *NOT* sexism, it is *NOT* feminist backlash,
    it is *NOT* some hideous male plot.  It is the system of
    criminal justice in the U.S. and the difficulty in gathering
    and presenting evicence set up by the SUPREME COURT.
    
    I find rape utterly abhorant, but I find that a group that so 
    highly touts "equal rights" now demanding *special* consideration 
    because this crime is something that happens primarily to women *is*
    sexist *AND* hypocritical.
    
    fred();

    re .161
    
    I agree with the comments but do not share the (implied?) sentiments.
    
    
    				herb

    Fred-
    
    Please let me take a stab at this.  
    
    I don't ask for special treatment for rape victims.
    
    When a rape victim enters a police department and says "i'd like
    to report that I've been raped", the responding police officer
    should take the statement at face value without making any judgements
    about the woman, how it happened, if she deserved it etc. and begin
    his/her report/investigation on the premise that a rape has occured.
    In all actuality, many women upon making a report are from the get
    go questioned in their veracity ie; are you sure, did you like it,
    etc.  All types of statements are made/inferred which are completely
    inappropriate to the action of taking and responding to a report of
    a violent crime.  When a person reports they've been mugged, the 
    statement is taken at face value, and generally assumed, that yes,
    you've been mugged and the investigation/report will be based on 
    said premise until such time as EVIDENCE may indicate otherwise.  There
    seems to be an assumption with rape victims that there will
    automatically be evidence to prove that she really wasn't assaulted,
    she may have really wanted ity, you know.  So, you see, the problem
    isn't even with the judges/da's to the extent you implied.  As Annie
    pointed out, a judge has nothing to do with a DA's decision to
    prosecute or not.  The point is, a rape victim should be given the
    same consideration as anyone else reporting a violent crime.  In many
    many cases, this does not happen and THAT's what makes a person think
    twice about pursuing the matter beyond the initial reporting stages.
    Hell, once a cop or doctor has spent all this time with you and they\
    indicate that they find your report to be more of a story, who else
    will believe you.  It's not special consideration and it's not a case
    of all rape victims always tell the truth.  I hope this helps.
    
    CK

    <When a rape victim enters a police department and says "i'd like
    <to report that I've been raped", the responding police officer
    <should take the statement at face value without making any judgements
    <about the woman, how it happened, if she deserved it etc. and begin
    <his/her report/investigation on the premise that a rape has occured.
    
    Absolutely.    
    				herb

    Thanks, herb.
    
    CK

    re. 163
    
    >When a rape victim enters a police department and says "i'd like
    >to report that I've been raped", the responding police officer
    >hould take the statement at face value without making any judgements
    >about the woman, how it happened, if she deserved it etc. and begin
    >his/her report/investigation on the premise that a rape has occured.
    >In all actuality, many women upon making a report are from the get
    >go questioned in their veracity ie; are you sure, did you like it,
    >etc.  All types of statements are made/inferred which are completely
    >inappropriate to the action of taking and responding to a report of
    >a violent crime.  
    
    I agree.  However, a few facts of life, investigators must be very 
    careful not to *contaminate* that case bay *not* asking these questions.
    Because of the social repercussions of *accusstion* of rape, an
    investigator can find himself in a *lot* more trouble for not asking
    these questions and being too quick to run out and arrest somebody than
    he can be for seeming harsh or impersonal with the victim.  If the
    case goes to the already overworked DA and the DA is the one who
    discovers that there are some major iffy evidence or considerations 
    that the invertigator did not ask about, then the DA, and the
    investigator's Boss, are going to be none too happy.
    Not saying I like it, but this happens in *any* criminal case.
    
    >When a person reports they've been mugged, the statement is taken 
    >at face value, and generally assumed, that yes,  you've been mugged 
    >and the investigation/report will be based on said primis until such 
    >time as EVIDENCE may indicate otherwise.  There seems to be an 
    >assumption with rape victims that there will automatically be evidence 
    >to prove that she really wasn't assaulted, she may have really wanted 
    >ity, you know.  
    
    Again it is not a good time to be asking the vicitim these kind of
    questions, but the investigator *HAS* to ask.
    Your chances of getting someone convited of mugging you are about
    the same as getting someone convicted of rape.  
    
    >So, you see, the problem  isn't even with the judges/da's to the 
    >extent you implied.  As Annie pointed out, a judge has nothing to 
    >do with a DA's decision to prosecute or not.  
    
    The DA will decide to prosecute based on what he thinks the chances
    of conviction are and on his desire to "make good" with the voters.
    Not on whether he thinks there was a crime committed.  
    
    >The point is, a rape victim should be given the
    >same consideration as anyone else reporting a violent crime.  
    
    	agreed.
    
    >Hell, once a cop or doctor has spent all this time with you and they\
    >indicate that they find your report to be more of a story, who else
    >will believe you.  
    	
    Maybe as it should be.  Should we take *every* report of a crime
    into court.  You can be the defense lawyer is going to put the doctor
    on the stand and start asking questions.
    
    However, if you don't report the crime in the first place, 
    nobody else ever gets a chance.
    
    <It's not special consideration and it's not a case
    >of all rape victims always tell the truth.  
    
    Enough lie, though, to make life very tought for real victims.
    

    RE: .161  Fred
    
    > I am responding to the tyrade that so many women don't bother
    > trying because it is *so* hard.
    
    The problem is that the legal system abuses rape victims.  Some
    women don't go through the system after rape because they've
    already been abused enough.  We need to fix this.
    
    > I find rape utterly abhorant, but I find that a group that so 
    > highly touts "equal rights" now demanding *special* consideration 
    > because this crime is something that happens primarily to women *is*
    > sexist *AND* hypocritical.
    
    This is rubbish.  What special consideration is being asked for in
    the case of rape?
    
    Substantiate your accusations or stop making them.
    
    And, by the way, my name is Suzanne.  Please add it to your spell-
    checker.

    George:
    
    I wonder whether what you are saying comes under the general category
    of 'filing a complaint', of filing ANY kind of a complaint. 
    Or are you saying there is something about rape (and maybe -say- child
    abuse or domestic violoence) in particular that makes it necessary for
    police officers to treat it special?
    As an example, in filing a complaint for -say- burglary or auto-theft,
    or vandalism or what have you there is always the possibility that the
    person who files a complaint later choses not to press charges.
    
    
    			herb
    

    re .167
    
    >This is rubbish.  
    
    And I have a few bridges I'd like to sell.
    
    >What special consideration is being asked for in the case of rape?
    
    Weren't you the one screaming that Anita Hill's accusations should
    have been taken at face value??  Aren't you one of those who 
    have been advocating that when it't the victim's word against the
    accused (in court), then the victim should be the one who is 
    automatically believed to be telling the truth?
    
    fred();

    RE: .166  Fred
    
    >> It's not special consideration and it's not a case
    >> of all rape victims always tell the truth.  
    
    > Enough lie, though, to make life very tought for real victims.
    
    Enough RAPE VICTIMS lie - or did you mean enough WOMEN lie?
    
    This is bigotry, plain and simple.

    re .170
    
    >Enough RAPE VICTIMS lie - or did you mean enough WOMEN lie?
    
    Enough ACCUSERS lie. and it doesn't take many.
    
    >This is bigotry, plain and simple.
    
    	Why? Because we won't throw every man in jail just because
    	he is *accused* of a crime?
    
    fred();
    
    

.163>  I don't ask for special treatment for rape victims.
.163>
.163>  When a rape victim enters a police department and says "i'd like
.163>  to report that I've been raped", the responding police officer
.163>  should take the statement at face value without making any judgements
.163>  about the woman, how it happened, if she deserved it etc. and begin
.163>  his/her report/investigation on the premise that a rape has occured.

    That _is_ special treatment.

    I reported a case of vandalism at a nightclub once.  What were the
    officer's first questions when he showed up?  What were you doing
    here at this hour? Who were you here with?  Did you provoke the
    other guy?  Did you know the other guy?  Did your friend know the
    other guy?  I was reporting a broken window on a car, and he was
    asking me questions that had nothing to do with my window. 

    But I realized the necessity for those kinds of questions and I
    didn't get upset by the line of questioning.

    This isn't an ideal world, and it never will be.  I think it's a
    waste of energy to try and make it so.  I'd rather counsel the rape
    victim on what to expect than get the police to stop asking tough
    but legitimate questions. They need to determine the entire situation,
    not just the microcosm that the victim wants to talk about.

     fred-
    
    Somehow I think you are still missing my point.  When someone is
    robbed, they aren't asked if they liked it.  When someone is raped
    they are very often asked if they liked it.  It seems to me that 
    the investigator is starting with the premise that the crime DID
    NOT occur and it is this attitude that further abuses the victim.
    We aren't even talking here about the victim fingering someone and
    whose word should be taken at this point.  We are talking about the
    plain fact that very often when a woman reports a rape, from the
    moment the word rape is out of her mouth, the process of not believeing
    her has begun.  I will grant that investigators do need to ask some
    questions which may be upsetting, but to do so in a way that indicates 
    to the victim "ok, lady, who are you trying to get even with tonight"
    or some similar negative attitude is not the job of the investigator.
    It is his/her job to determine facts, not to base his/her own
    prejudices upon the victim and make the victim prove to them that the
    assault actually occured.  Am I making this clear?  If I reported that
    my home had been broken into, I would not get the attitude, yeah, so
    what stupid thing did you do to let this happen to you, or the maybe
    cause your so rich, you could afford to lose a few valuables or any
    other type of attitude which trivializes the victimization.
    
    >Enough lie, though, to make life very tought for real victims.
    
    Does this mean that all victims should be penalized for the 
    mistakes of the few that do lie?  

    RE: .169  Fred
    
    >> This is rubbish.  
    
    > And I have a few bridges I'd like to sell.
    
    I'm sure you do.  Meanwhile, your statement is still rubbish unless
    you can substantiate it.
    
    > Weren't you the one screaming that Anita Hill's accusations should
    > have been taken at face value??  Aren't you one of those who 
    > have been advocating that when it't the victim's word against the
    > accused (in court), then the victim should be the one who is 
    > automatically believed to be telling the truth?
    
    No, this is *NOT* what I've been saying.  Not by a long shot.
    
    Substantiate your claims or stop making them.

    RE: .171  Fred
    
    >> Enough RAPE VICTIMS lie - or did you mean enough WOMEN lie?
    
    >  Enough ACCUSERS lie. and it doesn't take many.
    
    >> This is bigotry, plain and simple.
    
    	  > Why? Because we won't throw every man in jail just because
    	  > he is *accused* of a crime?
    
    It's bigotry if women (as a group) lack credibility in the legal
    system because of a negative stereotype.

    Mike-
    
    Your phrase tough but legitimate questions.  That's reasonable.
    What's not reasonable is to purposly make the victim feel that
    they are lying/responsible for their predicament.  Although the
    questions may be tough, they can be asked in a manner that does
    not throw doubt on every answer given.  When you were asked those
    questions, did you feel that the officer was doubting your veracity?
    Many rape victims are asked the question in manners which projects
    the questioners attitudes about rape onto the victim in such a way
    as to devalue the person making the report.  Did you feel that way
    on your vandalism report?  If so, then my commment would be things
    are equitable, but then the system should be changed for everybody.

    Mike:
    
    I have a great deal of trouble believing that you consider your episode
    to be comparable to rape. In a counter example sense it is, in a
    humanness sense it not only isn't comparable, it also -in my opinion-
    suggests insensitivity and disingenuousness.

    re 174
    
    Susanne,
    
    I seriously doubt that *any* amount of evidence *or* logic would
    convince *you*.  All I can do is thank god that there *are* more
    sane and reasonable people in the world.
    
    fred();

    The reason that rape victims are asked these, so called, insulting
    questions are to make shure that if they write a report upon the case.
    Which they are by law, that the information is absolute. Not hear-say.
    Assumptions are going to get everyone involved into the butt grinder.
    And if the case is concreat, or if the case is called to court they
    parties in question don't want to have some attorny sreading the case
    like a large dog with a feather pillow. And them being the pillow.
    
    All of the above parties involved, the doctors, lawyers, nurses, police
    have a liability insurance. They have to protect it with their
    carriers. With their lives. If they flub, and causes their insruance to
    go up, or causes loss of job the parties in question are not going to
    be happy campers. They might have spent their entire lives on
    education, and college, and know no other practice that will make them
    happy either. I agree that victims can be victims. But..... If it was
    your job on the line. And you had a rape victim come in to your office,
    or what ever. And you knew that your going to be called upon to defend
    this victim. Would you make shure that the assumptions were removed
    from the report? Would you like to loose your job because the
    defendant counter sues you because.. or the victim sues you because????
    
    I donno. I think that afer watching the 'Big Dan Case', Wild Willy and
    the Kennedy Huns, I would be leary. I would ask all the questions
    necessary to make shure that I will have a job next month....

    re .175
    
    >It's bigotry if women (as a group) lack credibility in the legal
    >system because of a negative stereotype.
    
    It's also biggotry to give women the "assumed honesty" in a court
    of law.  VICTIMS lack credibility not just women.  That's just
    the way the courts work.
    
    fred();

    RE: .178  Fred
    
    > I seriously doubt that *any* amount of evidence *or* logic would
    > convince *you*.  
    
    My own words would convince me (if your claims about my position
    were true.)  However, your claims were false, so you can't possibly
    substantiate them.
    
    > All I can do is thank god that there *are* more
    > sane and reasonable people in the world.
    
    If you only believe your own distortions (instead of my actual words,)
    then I don't blame you for being upset by your own creations.
    
    One's imagination is often more frightening than what's really happening.

re .176, .177, and with regard to Michael's .172-

I'd combine both of your points of view to ask Michael about that comparison.
It may be, as he claims, just "necessity" that these kinds of questions are
asked.  But I wonder if, rather than a broken window on his car, if it had
been a little bit more personal; say, a random guy walks up and broke his 
*leg*, for example- whether or not he would find such insulting questions
quite a bit less necessary.  Like, whether or not Michael knew the guy is
no kind of excuse for the guy to have broken his leg.  Whether or not they'd
had some kind of altercation or disagreement.  Whether or not they'd been on
a date.  The leg-breaking is a totally unacceptable tactic for conducting 
any interpersonal relations, and if the officer asks the questions in a way 
that makes it seem to Michael like the officer may just think Michael earned
his broken leg, deserved to have it broken by this guy...Michael would perhaps
have a different opinion about the "necessity" of such insensitivity during
the questioning of a victim of a violent crime.  We are asking that victims
of violent leg-breaking be treated as though OF COURSE they didn't deserve
to have their legs broken.  OF COURSE victims of rape didn't deserve it.  The
investigator who can't ask neutral fact-eliciting questions without giving an
impression which further brutalizes the victim is an incompetent oaf, and so
is the department that trained him/her.

DougO

    RE: .180  Fred
    
    >> It's bigotry if women (as a group) lack credibility in the legal
    >> system because of a negative stereotype.
    
    > It's also biggotry to give women the "assumed honesty" in a court
    > of law.  VICTIMS lack credibility not just women.  That's just
    > the way the courts work.
    
    No one is asking for "assumed honesty" in a court of law.

    Fred,
    
    I ask for fairness and you accuse me of wanting to throw every man
    accused of rape into jail.
    
    I ask that a reported rape be given the same consideration as other
    reported crimes [and have experience of others in my life] and you
    accuse me of proclaiming the absolute believability of a woman
    alledging rape in a court of law.
    
    I agree that every rape should be reported and have cited rape
    counselling /hot line support work I've done to support this goal; yet
    because I acknowledge that the difficulty of doing so is a major
    deterrent to getting all rapes reported you accuse me of 'being on a
    tyrade (sic)'
    
    Why do you do this?
    
      Annie

    re .-1
    
    I wish you wouldn't waste your time!

    re: 182
    
    YES, YES, YES!
    
    Thank you, DougO
    
    CK

    re .181
    
    >My own words would convince me (if your claims about my position
    >were true.)  However, your claims were false, so you can't possibly
    >substantiate them.
    
    Just as I suspected.
    
    >If you only believe your own distortions (instead of my actual words,)
    >then I don't blame you for being upset by your own creations.
    
    Naw, I'd rather believe my actual words instead of your distortions.
    
    >One's imagination is often more frightening than what's really happening.
    
    One's imagination is often more frightening than what's really happening.
    
    fred();

    re .183
    
    >No one is asking for "assumed honesty" in a court of law.
    
    and if anybody's buying *that* I have a big tall building centerally
    located in Manhattan that I'd like to sell.  Close to entertainment,
    transportation, and shoppint.  I'll even throw in the diribible dock.
    Should come in handy with the Navy doing new research into blimps
    and dirigibles.
    
    fred();

    >I seriously doubt that *any* amount of evidence *or* logic would
    >convince *you*.  All I can do is thank god that there *are* more
    >sane and reasonable people in the world.
    
    Fred,  This is treading very close to ad hominem.  Please stick to
    your opinions of the issues and avoid making comments on the
    intelligence and sanity of people who here disagree with you.
    
    			Thanks.  Vick (moderator)
    
    

    re .189
    
    >Fred,  This is treading very close to ad hominem.  Please stick to
    >your opinions of the issues and avoid making comments on the
    >intelligence and sanity of people who here disagree with you.
    
    I would think that accusing me of being a biggot because I don't
    agree with *her* is getting pretty close too then.
    
    fred();

    re .189
    I strongly protest the implication that only Fred is 'behaving'
    inappropriately.
    I don't see how it is possible to 'scold' one of them without
    'scolding' both of them.
    
    
    				herb

    re .191
    
    >Fred, if we said this, then you should have no trouble proving
    >it.  The notes are here - you simply have to quote them.
    
   > If you are unable to quote them (without excuses or without endless
   > whining about selling bridges or buildings,) then your claims about
   > this are false.
    
    Just because I don't play to *your* rules to *your* satisfaction
    does not make me wrong.
    
    >If your argument depends on lying about your opponents, it must be
    >pretty weak indeed.
    
    Again just because I cannot prove my point to *your* satisfaction
    (which is impossible as stated by you) does not make me a liar.
    
    fred();

    RE: .188  Fred
    
    >> No one is asking for "assumed honesty" in a court of law.
    
    > and if anybody's buying *that*...
    
    Fred, if we said this, then you should have no trouble proving
    it.  The notes are here - you simply have to quote them.
    
    If you are unable to quote them (without excuses or without endless
    whining about selling bridges or buildings,) then your claims about
    this are false.
    
    If your argument depends on lying about your opponents, it must be 
    pretty weak indeed.

    to all,
    
      I have more or less done what I had intended by participating here:
    to give a concrete example of the current system's treatment of rape
    victims and to urge change to that system.
    
      I have responded, clarified, and rebutted when I thought it might be
    of use.  What the outcome of my participation here will be, even if
    there will be one, is in the hands and minds of those who've chosen to
    listen.
    
      This is not womannotes, much less Annie-notes, so I believe that it
    is time for me to fold up my umbrella and move on to other things.
    
      Thank you and good-bye,
    
               Annie

    re .-1
    
    that really disappoints me.

    RE: .193  Fred
    
    > Just because I don't play to *your* rules to *your* satisfaction
    > does not make me wrong.
    
    Fred, you've made false statements about what others have said.
    It most definitely makes you "wrong" about these statements (unless
    you can prove otherwise.)  Obviously, you can't.
    
    > Again just because I cannot prove my point to *your* satisfaction
    > (which is impossible as stated by you) does not make me a liar.
    
    You don't have to prove a "point" to anyone.  However, if you make
    claims about what other people have written here, you'd better be 
    prepared to back them up (otherwise, the claims are lies.)

    Fred,
    I don't read all these notes carefully.  Sorry, I just don't have the
    time.  I did not see the note you refer to.  If you would give me a
    pointer to it I would be glad to read it.  
    
    Herb,
    Two wrongs don't make a right.  When I see an abuse I will point it
    out.  Fred's happened to be the one I saw.  If you or anyone else sees
    an abuse that I don't then it would be helpful if you would point them 
    out to me or one of the other moderators.
    
    					- Vick  (moderator)

    Not least because of the ambiguity.
    
    I don't know whether you 
    	are going away with respect for _anybody's_ (yuh, mine) interractions 
    	with you.
    	have 'given up', 
    	are tired of the shouting,
    	no longer respect what people are trying to say
    	have given it your best shot
    	feel that an impasse has been reached 
    	have changed your feelings/opinions at all
    	none of the above ...

    re Vick
    
    .170 .175
    
    fred();

    RE .186 
    <YES, YES, YES!>
    <that's what I meant>

    That's unfortunate.
    I don't consider that situation to be much more relevant than a report
    of vandalism on a car. (specifically because there is rarely -if ever-
    the possibility of 'victim' complicity in a broken leg)
    
    
    				herb

    re .196
    
    >Fred, you've made false statements about what others have said.
    >It most definitely makes you "wrong" about these statements (unless
    >you can prove otherwise.)  Obviously, you can't.
    
    by whose judgment.  You've already stated (.181) that there is 
    no way I can *ever* prove any point (to you).
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .198  Vick
    
    In .170, I asked Fred if he was talking about "rape victims" or women
    when he wrote "enough lie, though, to make life very tought[SIC] for
    real victims":
    
    	"Enough RAPE VICTIMS lie - or did you mean enough WOMEN lie?
    	This is bigotry, plain and simple."
    
    This is what I wrote about bigotry (in .175) to expand on .170:
    
    	"It's bigotry if women (as a group) lack credibility in the legal
    	system because of a negative stereotype."

    Re:  ad hominem
    
    We have to allow people to say that an opinion is bigotted, or
    untrue, or specious, or mean-spirited, or whatever.  I hope 
    everyone can see the difference between that and calling another
    person a bigot, a liar, stupid or nasty.  There is a big difference.
    An intelligent person can put forward a specious argument.  An
    honest person can state an opinion that happens to be untrue.  Nice
    people get over-heated and say mean-spirited things.  Suzanne was
    perhaps treading a little close when she went from saying a statement
    of Fred's was untrue to suggesting Fred was lying.  There is a lot
    of gray area here.  That's why I told Fred he was "treading close" to
    ad hominem.  His statement had stopped talking about what Suzanne
    had said and was speaking about Suzanne as a person.  I would
    appreciate it if both Suzanne and Fred would be careful to stick
    to the issues and leave your perceptions of each other's character
    flaws unspoken.
    
    					- Vick  (moderator)
    

    RE: .203  Fred
    
    > by whose judgment.  You've already stated (.181) that there is 
    > no way I can *ever* prove any point (to you).
    
    You've made a number of false claims about statements I've made.  
    In .181, I explained to you that you COULD prove to me that I'd 
    said these things if you quoted them for me:
     
    	"My own words would convince me (if your claims about my position
        were true.)  However, your claims were false, so you can't possibly
        substantiate them."
    
    Stick to what people are really saying here, Fred (and not what you
    WISH some of us would say to make your case easier to argue.)
    
    Communication is difficult enough.

    re .205
    
        
>    My own words would convince me 
    
    >Stick to what people are really saying here, Fred (and not what you
    >WISH some of us would say to make your case easier to argue.)
    
    very well then My reply:
    
    
>	"My own words would convince me (if your claims about my position
>        were true.)  However, your claims were false, so you can't possibly
>        substantiate them."
    
    fred();

    RE: .206  Fred
    
    >> Stick to what people are really saying here, Fred (and not what you
    >> WISH some of us would say to make your case easier to argue.)
    
    > very well then
    
    Glad we got this straightened out.

    <We have to allow people to say that an opinion is bigotted, or
    <untrue, or specious, or mean-spirited, or whatever.  I hope 
    <everyone can see the difference between that and calling another
    <person a bigot, a liar, stupid or nasty.  There is a big difference.
    
    The principal difference is that one is acceptable in notes protocol
    and the other isn't. That difference DWARFS all other differences.
    
    An intelligent person can put forward a specious argument.  An
    honest person can state an opinion that happens to be untrue. (which
    does not make it a lie)
    Nice people get over-heated and say mean-spirited things.  
    
    But it is rather difficult for a smart person to put forth a stupid
    argument
    
    Nor is it very easy for a nice person to make nasty statements.
    
    The implications about the person are obvious, and -i believe- are
    often intended as being techniques for being mean-spirited without
    violating protocol.
    

    I am one intelligent person who has made many stupid arguments in his
    lifetime, some recently.
    
    I am one nice person who has made many nasty comments in my lifetime,
    some in this notesfile.
    
    Speak to the argument, not to the person.  Please.
    
    							- Vick

    re .207
    
    'Cept you didn't answer *my* question yet.
    
    Who made you judge, jury, and exicutioner of what is and isn't a 
    valid and/or true argument?
    
    Geez. I'd take on the Chicago Bulls single handed if I could 
    be the ref' too. ---- Let's see I whonder what the world record
    for an entire team fouling out is ;^)?
    
    fred();
    

    'speak to the argument, not the person'
    
    I consider such reasoning to be disingenuous

    FWIW - Suzanne is not the only one who continues to be amazed
    at Fred's repeated claims about what rape victims supposedly
    want; and when told it isn't true or asked to substantiate,
    offers to sell things and/or hems and haws and doesn't answer
    except by pointing to Suzanne's note about Anita Hill which 
    was only an example of the societal *assumption* that women lie 
    rather than a request to *always* believe everything a woman
    says.  
    
    If you don't believe you can convince Suzanne, Fred, perhaps
    you could convince me?
    
    Show me where anyone has asked for "special consideration."
    Show me where anyone has asked that rape victims be given *MORE*
    (not equal, but "more") credibility than the alleged rapist.
    
    If people are asking for such things, I'd like to see it cause
    I think its wrong too.
    
    /Greg
    

    To those of you who sent me e-mail subsequent to my .194, I had thought
    my reasons were clearly delineated but then, of course I'm on the
    inside and know what I meant to say ...  ;^)
    
    I feel that the discussion has moved beyond [sort of] what I feel I can
    affect.  I recounted my experiences, my feelings about them, and a
    beginning to the changes I would like to see.  For the most part, I
    have enjoyed and benefitted from my experience here.  I have certainly
    been given some new views to go home and ponder -- whether to embrace
    or frame a strategy to neutralise remains to be seen.
    
    I chose not to go on further as I feel that those who _can_ hear me,
    _have_ heard me.  There is little point in arguing or debating with
    those who cannot hear me.  Quite probably I will try again some other
    time. It is, after all, my pattern.
    
    I chose to _say_ "I'm sitting this one out now" so that I would not be
    perceived as rude, angry or petulant.
    
      Annie

 Thank you for your contributions, Annie. I'm sure they required mnore of
you than might be obvious to someone who just happened along and read them.
I know that I appreciated your candor.

 The Doctah

    RE: .210  Fred
    
    > Who made you judge, jury, and exicutioner of what is and isn't a 
    > valid and/or true argument?
    
    My powers of observation help me to notice when you focus your
    arguments against ideas and positions that you are falsely
    attributing to your opponents.
    
    > Geez. I'd take on the Chicago Bulls single handed if I could 
    > be the ref' too. ---- Let's see I whonder what the world record
    > for an entire team fouling out is ;^)?
    
    You'd have the same advantage if I allowed you to speak for me
    without pointing out the many false statements you're making about 
    my position in this discussion.

.176>    Your phrase tough but legitimate questions.  That's reasonable.
.176>    What's not reasonable is to purposly make the victim feel that
.176>    they are lying/responsible for their predicament.  Although the
.176>    questions may be tough, they can be asked in a manner that does
.176>    not throw doubt on every answer given.  When you were asked those

    Did you ever see the movie Mortal Thoughts?  The portrayal of the
    police interview with Demi Moore was realistic.  Remember, she went
    in NOT a suspect, yet the police still were skeptical.  Investigators
    are taught to treat _everybody_ as a suspect.

    That's the way they are trained.  And when they forget their training
    and they assume they know who's telling the truth, they wind up like
    they did with the Charles Stuart case.  A little more scrutiny and a
    little less accomodation when questioning Charles would have made a
    difference.

    I'm sorry.  I feel for the victim.  I really do.  But I also see the
    necessity to assume _nothing_ and ask _everything_.


.177> I have a great deal of trouble believing that you consider your episode
.177> to be comparable to rape.

    Yeah, me too.

    Why do you think I implied a broken window is comparable to rape?

    The relavent point was that the police do not treat alleged rape
    victims any differently that other alleged victims.

    >The relavent point was that the police do not treat alleged rape
    >victims any differently that other alleged victims.
    
    I have seen no evidence to convince me this is true.  I have read much to
    convince me it is not true.  
    
    					- Vick

.217>  I have seen no evidence to convince me this is true.  I have read much
.217>  to convince me it is not true.  
    
    I'm not terribly surprised, Victor, in fact you've already offered
    an explanation :
    
.198><<< Note 762.198 by DSSDEV::BENNISON "Victor L. Bennison DTN 381-2156 ZK2-3/R56" >>>
.198>
.198>    Fred,
.198>    I don't read all these notes carefully.  Sorry, I just don't have the
.198>    time.
    

    RE: .218  
    
    .217>I have seen no evidence to convince me this is true.  I have read much
    .217>to convince me it is not true.  
    
    > I'm not terribly surprised, Victor, in fact you've already offered
    > an explanation :
    
    		.198> I don't read all these notes carefully.
    
    Let's not assume that anyone's exposure to this issue is confined to a
    bunch of 1's and 0's on a disk.

    RE: .218
    
    How can you try to make a point by taking a quote out of context ?
    
    Such an attempt hardly qualifies as a 'touche' declaration
    

    Out of context?  Show me.

    RE: .221
    
    Note .198 is in response to the on-going battle
    fred()  -VS-  suzanne
    
    That has dominated this topic from the onset

    Yeah, so why is it out of context?
    
    We were both talking about the notes here, in this topic.

    I wasn't talking about notes in this conference.
    
    					- Vick

    Mike-
    
    I have no objection to legitimate questions being asked.  This
    is hard for me to put into words, but I will try.  Your comments
    about the police treating all victims as suspects doesn't ring
    true to me.  I may have misunderstood you, or I may misunderstand
    the law, however, I thought that once a person became a suspect as
    a result of the investigation, Miranda must be issued and the person
    is then informed of his/her rights.  In terms of a rape victim becoming
    a suspect, one may suspect that her claim may be false, but she does
    not in turn become the suspect of the alleged crime of rape.  Do you 
    see the difference I'm pointing out?  In a murder case, when someone
    who is questioned on a preliminary basis becomes a suspect, he/she 
    becomes a suspect as the perpetrator of said crime..  A person cannot
    commit rape upon hirself (well, I'm not aware of it anyway), but can
    for whatever reason allege an attack that didn't happen.  This is
    wrong.  I also think it is a small minority of cases where this is in
    fact what happened.  And as this is wrong, I feel confident that a 
    proper investigation will reveal this.  However, I do agree that there
    are some questions which are just not approriate to an investigation.
    Questions such as how many lovers have you had?, how often do you 
    experience orgasm?, do you enjoy sex?, why did you wear a skirt that
    didn't cover your knees, or that tank top?, where do you buy your 
    underwear...etc these are not appropriate to finding out the facts in
    an alleged rape.  Questions regarding identity, previous knowledge etc
    are appropriate, but the answeres shouldn't necessarity indicate that
    if the woman knew him before hand, it couldnt' possibly be rape and 
    from what I have seen,, it's in erroneous conclusions as the above
    that causes the system to trivilize and further abuse the victim.  I
    think this is all I can say on this subject, so I'm outta this for now.
    
    CK

    <I'm sorry.  I feel for the victim.  I really do.  But I also see the
    <necessity to assume _nothing_ and ask _everything_.
    
    Metoo, and I think that police have probably been getting some
    sensitivity training in how to do that with more of a sense of courtesy
    and respect over the last 20 years or so.

    your response to 
    "I have a great deal of trouble believing that you consider your episode
    to be comparable to rape." was...

    <Yeah, me too.
    Good, i'm glad you don't think the episode is comparable to rape
    
    <Why do you think I implied a broken window is comparable to rape?
    Because that was the episode that was presented -presumably- to show
    that you weren't treated any differently.
    
    <The relavent point was that the police do not treat alleged rape
    <victims any differently that other alleged victims.
    
    Yes, now I see that, and I almost completely agree with you. (need to
    hold some reservations about whether police DO treat rape victims
    _somewhat_ differently. I wonder as an example how police might treat
    a male victim of homosexual rape.) Other than that, I agree with just
    about everything you say in .216.
    I was thinking about that last night and planned on entering a comment
    that police do not treat victims 'well'. And in the very least my
    impression is that the police are pretty consistent in treating people
    who report crimes/problems with at least scepticism if not suspicion or
    even downright hostility. Victims make police work!
    
    I know that when kids have vandalized my property I reacted to it with
    an impotent sense of violation. Wouldn't surprise me that you felt some
    of that when your car was 'violated'. The feeling of violation and rage
    is almost incomparably worse when one's body has been violated; coping
    with 'adversarial' police at that point just MUST be horrendous.
    
    
    				keep on truckin
    				herb

    re .218 etc
    Awe, Mike: that is disappointing. Sort of a cute debating point, but
    really kind of an irrelevant 'cheap shot'
    
    				h

    <I have no objection to legitimate questions being asked.  This
    <is hard for me to put into words, but I will try.  Your comments
    <about the police treating all victims as suspects doesn't ring
    <true to me.  
    How about if the section you are objecting to were changed to read 
    something like...
    
    "the police treat all victims with the same sort of disdain/<whatever>
    	that not even suspects deserve or
    	that one would HOPE would be reserved for suspects"
    	
    
    I think that gives a comparable sense of how he (and to some extend, I)
    feels that police treat victims yet avoids the cul-de-sac of Miranda
    considerations etc
    
    				herb

    What all of this boils down for me is the victims of rape don't want to
    be blamed for the rape happening anymore.  We are tired of being asked
    "What did you do to cause this?"  It's like asking a 3 year old what
    he/she did to cause being sexually abused.  *All* we want is to be able
    to walk into a hospital or police station, report we were raped and
    have whoever is responsible found and prosecuted.  We DON'T want to be
    asked if we did anything to contribute to being raped, because we didn't. 
    We were not and are not EVER responsible for ANY other persons actions.
    
    Is this so hard to understand??  Fred, Herb, is it?
    
    Karen

    <What all of this boils down for me is the victims of rape don't want to
    <be blamed for the rape happening anymore.
    That is a perfectly reasonable expectation.
    I think it's the case that authorities are pretty insensitive to
    victims in general. I don't know for certain whether that is more so,
    the same, or less so for rape victims -or can even be quantified in
    that fashion- In the case of aggravated rape, the feelings of being
    totally violated are likely to be much worse than for most other crimes.
    And may deserve a _heightened_ sensitivity on the part of authorities.

    <it's like asking a 3 year old what he/she did to cause being sexually
    <abused.
    Very seldom is it like that.

    <*All* we want is to be able to walk into a hospital or police station,
    report we were raped and have whoever is responsible found and
    <prosecuted.  
    That is not a realistic expectation (although I do empathize with it)
    
    <Is this so hard to understand??  Fred, Herb, is it?>
    I find it hard to understand why you couple our names together.
    It suggests to me that you don't see a significant difference between
    us. If that is the case, then I do not think we are having the same
    conversation.
					herb    

    re susanne & co.
    
    Actually what I am trying to do is to take a look at the *real*
    problems and possible solutions to those problems.  I agree that
    the way that rape victime are treated is &^%$#.  But I disaggree
    that the problem is unique to rape victims.  I disagree that the
    problem is some hideous male conspiricy to "keep women in their
    place", and I disagee that the problem is that the problem is
    "society just doesn't care" (well in a round about way this may
    be true, but for reasons other than those that you put forth).
    
    Before this note turned into *yet another* hate campaing on how
    crappie society in general and men in particular treat women, I
    believe my notes were some of the few in here that made an honest
    attempt to speak to the subject of this note.  For that I get called
    a liar and biggot.
    
    At this point the *WORST* thing I can do to you is to do *NOTHING*.
    Let you go ahead and keep blasting away at your foot and alienating
    those of us who *could* help address the *real* problems.
    
    fred();

    RE: .231  Frid
    
    > Before this note turned into *yet another* hate campaing on how
    > crappie society in general and men in particular treat women, I
    > believe my notes were some of the few in here that made an honest
    > attempt to speak to the subject of this note.  For that I get called
    > a liar and biggot.
    
    Your notes argued against things NO ONE HERE WROTE OR TRIED TO
    ADVOCATE IN ANY WAY.  Where is the honesty in this?
    
    Would you like it if we all blasted you for supporting the rape of
    women and refused to admit that you haven't done this?
    
    If this is acceptable behavior to you, then tell me:  Why do you
    support the raping of women?
    
    > At this point the *WORST* thing I can do to you is to do *NOTHING*.
    > Let you go ahead and keep blasting away at your foot and alienating
    > those of us who *could* help address the *real* problems.
    
    If you are so incapable of understanding the situation that you
    can not grasp what is being said about rape in this discussion,
    then you can't help fix the problems.

    Mods.
    note .232
    
    >If this is acceptable behavior to you, then tell me:  Why do you
    >support the raping of women?

    I believe that this is *absolutel* over the line and *absolutely*
    outrageous.
    
    fred();
    

    I agree with Fred.
    
    The assertion that Fred supports rape reeks of despicable dimentia.

    RE: .233  Fred
    
    See?  You don't like it much when people make false claims about
    what you've said (even when someone makes it clear that it's only
    a demonstration, and not meant seriously.)
    
    Now do you understand what you've been doing to OTHERS throughout
    this entire discussion?
    
    Is it possible for you to comprehend this?

    
    
    Susan,
    
    Once again I ask you WHO MADE YOU JUDGE, JURY *AND* EXECUTIONER
    about what is true and what is honest openion.  Just because
    I cannot prove my point to *your* satisfaction dose not make
    me a biggot, liar, *or* a supporter of rape.
    
    fred();
    

    excuse me
    that's devious despicable dimentia.

I thought Suzanne's use of irony was fairly obvious, and she went out of her
way to warn that she was about to make use of it.    I see she was entirely
successful at making her point.

			Steve

    re .238
    
    What point????
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .236  Frid
    
    > Just because I cannot prove my point to *your* satisfaction dose not 
    > make me a biggot, liar, *or* a supporter of rape.
    
    Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
    
    The "point" you cannot prove is that I wrote the things you falsely
    claim I wrote.
    
    If someone were to claim that you've written notes in support of
    rape, wouldn't you expect the person to prove it?  Wouldn't you
    be angry if they kept insisting you said it when you know for
    a fact that you didn't?
    
    This is what you have been doing.  If you still don't understand
    what's going on here, then I have no idea how you can expect to
    discuss this subject.

    What point?!?!?!

    The point that you continually attribute false demands and
    false statements and false opinions to people in this note
    and then blast those falsehoods (and use them for an excuse
    not to "help" fix the problem of rape).

    And this "judge jury and executioner" stuff is complete
    rubbish.  If you could provide a SINGLE piece of evidence
    to support your accusations, we could get past this rathole.

    /Greg

    
>    If someone were to claim that you've written notes in support of
>    rape, wouldn't you expect the person to prove it?  Wouldn't y
    
    	No.  I expect the Mods to take some action on this.  Even
    as *irony* such statemets are *way* over the line.
    
    fred();

    Fred-
    
    My notes in no way inferred that I was embarking on a man-hating
    campaign.  I outlined what I felt were injustices that rape victims
    were subjected to while trying to report the crime.  I do believe I
    even made a comment in one note after MikeZ's explanation of his
    vandalism report that if such were the case with all reports, that
    perhaps the entire system should be addressed.  If that was not clear
    then, it should be now.  No victim of a violent crime, male or female
    should be subjected to disdain and humiliation when reporting that an
    injustice has been commited against them.  Many questions asked are
    legitimate, many are not.  If this equals being a man-hater, then I
    guess I have nothing further that can be added to this discussion.
    
    CK

    re .241.
    
    And I challenge you to prove to *my* satisfaction that *anything*
    I have written here has been other than my honest openion about
    the discussion.
    
    fred();

    .234
    
    Put my vote in on Fred. Come on guys. 

    Fred, In my opinion, the point is that both of you have been
    misrepresenting each others' statements and opinions throughout this
    -and other discussions.
    I think it is a common technique in 'debating' to distort what somebody
    is saying -particularly if some small part of what one is saying is
    intemperate- and try to make as seem as if that distortion is
    representative of what one is trying to say. And to attack it.
    
    In the heat of 'discussion' it is often difficult to recognize that
    that is what is going on, and as a result one often rises to that
    distortion with a 'counter insult'. 
    
    					herb
    

    RE: .244  Fred
    
    > And I challenge you to prove to *my* satisfaction that *anything*
    > I have written here has been other than my honest openion about
    > the discussion.
    
    Oh, I see.  If someone has the "honest opinion" that you've written
    notes in support of rape, then this person should be allowed to claim
    that you have written such notes (even though you haven't)?
    
    I'm just as offended by the false claims you've made about my notes
    as you are about being asked how you'd feel if the same thing were
    done to you!
    
    Now - how about you simply stop making these claims (since it's quite
    obvious that you dislike being subjected to these tactics as much as
    others of us do)?????

    
    and just what *false claims* have I been making Suzanne.
    
    fred();
    
    

    RE: .248  Fred
    
    Go back to your reply .169 (where you suggested that I've been
    advocating having rape victims believed "automatically" in rape
    cases.)  NO ONE HERE has suggested such a thing, including me.
    
    Rather than go into other examples of your falsehoods, I'd like
    to ask you to simply stop doing it.  You've demonstrated that
    you wouldn't like it any better than I do if it were done to
    you.
    
    Enough!

    RE: .244 (and now, .248 - the false claims have been pointed out to
    you a few times already)

    
    Addressing your "honest opinion" about the discussion...

    Well here we get into one of the stickiest areas of "debate"
    in *my* opinion.  Why?  Because some people seem to think they
    can say anything at all and if challenged, all they have to
    respond with is "well that's my opinion" - and that's the end of it.
    Frankly, I think that's a cop-out.

    So Ok, it is your "opinion" that Suzanne "& co." are on some
    kind of "hate campaign."   Well what makes you think that?
    Where has anyone said anything about hating men?  How did
    you come to hold this opinion about THIS conversation?
    An "opinion" is defined as a "belief often held without positive 
    knowledge or proof" (def. from American Heritage Dictionary).
    All we are asking for is *some* knowledge, *some* evidence that
    things are as you say.  You haven't offered us anything to go
    on.  It seems (to me anyway) that you have pulled these "opinions"
    out of thin air!   You don't want to accept Suzanne as
    "judge jury and executioner" - but apparently you want us to
    extend *you* that authority.  That isn't very fair, is it?

    Now, perhaps it is your interpretation of something that was said
    that didn't explicitly *say* anything about hating men, but
    you feel that is what was meant.  Is it that sort of thing?
    If it is, I think you could eliminate a lot of the problem if 
    you would say "my impression of what's behind your notes is 
    that you hate men" - that way, the person who wrote the note
    that made you think that, could explain why they said what they
    said and most probably tell you their *REAL* motivation (FWIW, I
    am convinced that neither Suzanne nor anyone else in this
    discussion hates or even dislikes men).


    You have also said that noters are asking for women to be given 
    *more* credibility than men.  I'd ask for the same kind thing
    in response to this.  *Some* kind of evidence, statement, proof,
    whatever, that logically leads you to form your "opinion."
    Keep in mind that whatever you use to support your opinion is
    also open to being challenged.   We can only come to an understanding
    if we understand and at least tacitly agree on the steps leading
    to the final statement (opinion).


    Does any of this make sense?   Do you think I'm being unfair?

    /Greg

    PS - It would be nice if you could at least not continue
         to intentionally misspell the participants names.

    the first entry by laveta::conlon in this discussion is entry #46

    among other things, it says (to Fred() ...
    "You're yelling at (and bashing) rape victims"

    re .249
    
    >Rather than go into other examples of your falsehoods, I'd like
    >to ask you to simply stop doing it.  You've demonstrated that
    >you wouldn't like it any better than I do if it were done to
    >you.
    
    As I would request that *you* do to *my* notes.
    
    You are welcome to state that you believe my statemens and openions
    are *incorrect*, and if you can, why they are incorrect.  You are
    *not* welcome to engage in such tactics as in .232.
    
    fred();

    RE: .252  Fred
    
    >> ...simply stop doing it.  You've demonstrated that you wouldn't
    >> like it any better than I do if it were done to you.
    
    > As I would request that *you* do to *my* notes.
    
    As Steve Lionel mentioned, I did it to make my point to you (about
    the falsehoods you've been making about my notes.)  It seems to
    have worked.
    
    > You are welcome to state that you believe my statemens and openions
    > are *incorrect*, and if you can, why they are incorrect.  You are
    > *not* welcome to engage in such tactics as in .232.
    
    You are welcome to the same things.  You are NOT welcome to make
    false claims about what I've written, then to blast me for them.
    
    I'm glad we finally have this straightened out!

    With ref to 
    <RE: .44  Fred
    >  -< An equal opportunity basher >-
    
    Instead of ...
    <You're yelling at (and bashing) rape victims.  (Fun for you?)>
    
    How about ...
    "Fred, I wonder if you understand that using capitals as in TRY DAMMIT
    conveys the feeling to some of us that you are angry, perhaps at women in
    general. Then when you use words like "an equal opportunity basher", it
    gives me the feeling that a part of your agenda is to "bash"
    rape victims. That is a very difficult concept to understand, let alone
    accept, and it makes me very angry to think that you may be feeling
    that way. I wish you could clarify that before I feel the need to start
    expressing MY anger at you."

    RE: .254
    
    FWIW - I think that is a valid re-write (was probably a hasty
    move on Suzanne's part to state Fred was bashing rape victims
    - although I don't think it unreasonable to assume that Fred
    knows what capital letters mean, and he himself used the term 
    "basher")
    
    /Greg

    re .249
    
    >Go back to your reply .169 (where you suggested that I've been
    >advocating having rape victims believed "automatically" in rape
    >cases.)  NO ONE HERE has suggested such a thing, including me.
    
    Then you should go back and re-read you own notes .86 and .91
    for starters.
    
    fred();

    But Fred she didn't say any such thing in those two notes.
    
    B

    re
    
    She said that she did not "suggest" such a thing.  I regard .86
    and .91 as pretty strong "suggestions".
    
    fred();

    How?!?!?  She was talking about women being "automatically"
    dismissed as liars (and how unfair that is) and you think 
    such statements are a "suggestion" that women "automatically" 
    be trusted as 100% truthful?  Especially *after* is was
    stated that what is *really* being asked for is *equal* 
    credibility?

    The logic there escapes me completely, Fred.

    /Greg

    RE: .258  Fred
    
    > She said that she did not "suggest" such a thing.  I regard .86
    > and .91 as pretty strong "suggestions".
    
    You're taking quite a leap, Fred.
    
    When I say that I'm against the *assumption* that women who charge
    rape or harassment are "nutty" or "liars," in no way does it imply 
    that I'd rather see women automatically believed in such cases.
    
    It only means that I don't want them automatically DIS-believed
    because they are women!

    re .258
    
    Then it's impossible for us do continue this discussion. 
    
    Also I have never stated that I said that I thought that anyone
    said that women should be believed 100%.  I have stated *repeatedly*
    that, by the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court, in a court of law
    the in the absence of cooberating evidence, the accused (man or wonman)
    is presumed to have the advantage.  Susanne's notes (and others) 
    *strongly* suggest that this should not be the case.  
    
    fred();

    re .260
    
    >When I say that I'm against the *assumption* that women who charge
    >rape or harassment are "nutty" or "liars," in no way does it imply 
    >that I'd rather see women automatically believed in such cases.
    
    >It only means that I don't want them automatically DIS-believed
    >because they are women!
    
    And what I am saying that in *no* case *ever* (rape, arson, murder,
    etc, etc, etc) should the ACCUSER, (be it man *or* woman) in the 
    absence of cooberating evicence ( evidence that has strict rules on 
    collection and presentation), be automatically believed over the 
    be accused.  If I am incorrect in this, then I am in *very* good 
    company.  To suggest otherwise is to say that in *some* cases (rape 
    in particular) this should *not* be the  way of doing buisness.
    
    fred();
    

    fred,
    
    and that's not what people are saying either... the problem at this
    point in time is that women are often treated with disbelief when
    they report rape. moving away from this attitude does not imply
    that they are to be considered 100% accurated. this is not an either
    or situation, tho you appear to be regarding it as such.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .262  Fred
    
    > And what I am saying that in *no* case *ever* (rape, arson, murder,
    > etc, etc, etc) should the ACCUSER, (be it man *or* woman) in the 
    > absence of cooberating evicence ( evidence that has strict rules on 
    > collection and presentation), be automatically believed over the 
    > be accused. 
    
    You're getting stuck on the word "automatically"...
    
    If witnesses were "automatically" believed (ever!!), then there would
    be no point in putting them on the stand for examination and cross-
    examination.
    
    OF COURSE witnesses aren't automatically believed.
    
    If an accuser and the accused present differing testimony (along with
    physical evidence that could be interpreted to support either of their
    stories,) then the jury should DECIDE (with nothing automatic about
    it) who they believe.
    
    If both stories are equally credible, then the accused should get the
    benefit of the doubt.  If the accuser's testimony is more credible
    (and it is consistent with the physical evidence,) then the jury may
    return a conviction.
    
    It's not automatic, Fred.

    now you talking in circles Susanne.
    fred();

    re .263
    
    Then my openion of your openion of my openion is that your openion
    does not coinside with your open of my openion.  Clear?
    
    fred();

    RE: .265  Frid
    
    You just don't understand, that's all.
    

    re .267
    
    Problem Susanne is taht I understand all *too* well.
    
    fred();

    I haven't read about 30 replies but I'm going to jump in because Karen
    provided a great lead-in.

>
>    What all of this boils down for me is the victims of rape don't want to
>    be blamed for the rape happening anymore.  We are tired of being asked
>    "What did you do to cause this?"  It's like asking a 3 year old what
>    he/she did to cause being sexually abused.  *All* we want is to be able
>    to walk into a hospital or police station, report we were raped and
>    have whoever is responsible found and prosecuted.  We DON'T want to be
>    asked if we did anything to contribute to being raped, because we didn't. 
>    We were not and are not EVER responsible for ANY other persons actions.
>    
>    Is this so hard to understand??  Fred, Herb, is it?
>    
>    Karen
>

    I agree.  There is never an excuse for the treatment Annie described
    in this string.  *IF* a women was raped everything you said was true. 
    The problem for the police is the if.

    I can just as easily say ... 

    What all of this boils down for me is the men unfairly accused of
    rape (or abuse or molestation) don't want to be blamed for the rape
    happening anymore.  We are tired of being asked "Why did you do this?" 
    All we want is to be able to walk into a police station, report we
    didn't do it and have whoever is responsible found and prosecuted.  We
    DON'T want to be asked if we contributed to the rape, because we
    didn't. We DON'T want our names in the papers or on the TV because we
    didn't commit the rape. We were not and are not EVER responsible for
    ANY other persons actions.            
         
    Is this so hard to understand??  Karen, Suzanne, is it?
    
    Greg

    *IF* a man was unfairly accused of rape (on purpose or by mistake)
    everything I said was true.  Once again the problem for the police is
    the if.   
                                             
    The police do not know if a rape occurred or if a man (or women) has
    been unfairly accused ... in either case the system will hurt the
    true victim (could be two victims with an incorrect identification).  

    I certainly hope the system can be made much-much more human and only
    pry as much as needed and relevant but the police need to make
    judgments on the 'ifs'.  Unfortunately I also believe this will always
    feel incredibly intrusive to whomever is the true victim.
                                                   
    Greg

                                       

Ok, now that we all understand, can we get back to the discussion?

				Steve

    Go fred(), go!
    
    fred()
    {
       expose();
       document();
       get_last_laugh();
    }

    RE: .268  Fred
    
    > Problem Susanne is taht I understand all *too* well.
    
    If you really understood, you'd be capable of discussing the issue
    (rather than clinging so desperately to negative stereotypes.)

    
    re .762.
    
    I believe this openion to be *extremely* hypocritical.
    
    fred();

    in re .266
    
    no, not clear, and is 'openion' supposed to be a funny spelling
    of opinion? and if so why are you making fun of my note?

re .268,

>    Problem Susanne is taht I understand all *too* well.
>
>    fred();

If you really understood then you would have figured
out how to spell "Suzanne" by now.

Dan

    re .272
    
    
    >re .762.  or rather 272
    
    >I believe this openion to be *extremely* hypocritical.
    
    	or opinion as Bonie would have me say.
    
    fred();

    RE: .271
    
    > fred()
    >  {
    >   expose();
    >   document();
    >   get_last_laugh();
    >  }
    
    He can name this program "Only_in_my_dreams.exe" ...
    

    re .275
    
>If you really understood then you would have figured
>out how to spell "Suzanne" by now.

    	Actually her spelling is getting *worse*.  She forgot how
    	to spell Fred.
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .276  Fred
    
    > re .762.  or rather 272
    
    > I believe this openion to be *extremely* hypocritical.
    
    Any excuse to keep dodging the issue, eh Fred?

    rre .279
    
    >Any excuse to keep dodging the issue, eh Fred?
    Any excuse to keep dodging the issue, eh Suzanne?

    Fred,
    
    My name is Bonnie, and I don't appreciate your slaming me.
    
    

    RE: .280  Fred
    
    If you're so anxious to get back to the issue, Fred, then why not
    accept that no one here is asking for courts to believe anyone
    "automatically."  
    
    People only want to stop the practice of automatically DIS-believing
    women in rape or harassment cases.
    
    Accusers and the accused should be given a fair chance to tell their
    stories.  If both are credible (and consistent with the available 
    physical evidence,) then the accused should get the benefit of the 
    doubt.
    
    If the accuser's testimony is more credible (and consistent with the
    physical evidence,) then it is appropriate for the jury to return a
    guilty verdict.
    
    No one's testimony is being automatically accepted in this scenerio,
    nor would I want it to be (under any circumstances.)  Believing one
    witness over another (due to being more credible) has nothing
    whatever to do with "automatically believing" anything.

    re mike 
    
    if (( pc ) and (mennotes))
    If ( ! logical_rebuttal )
    {
    	attack( person );
    	attack( noting_style );
    	attack( spelling );
    }

    re .282
    
    >If you're so anxious to get back to the issue, Fred, then why not
    >accept that no one here is asking for courts to believe anyone
    >"automatically."  
    
    re-read .86 and .91 
    
   > People only want to stop the practice of automatically DIS-believing
   > women in rape or harassment cases.
    
    	People want to prevent the practice of other people being 
    	thrown in jail and/or having their life ruined just because 
    	someone *accused* them of something.
    
    >Accusers and the accused should be given a fair chance to tell their
    >stories.  If both are credible (AND CONSISTENT WITH THE AVAILABLE 
    >PHYSICAL EVIDENCE,) then the accused should get the benefit of the 
    >doubt.
    
    >If the accuser's testimony is more credible (AND CONSISTENT WITH THE
    >PHYSICAL EVIDENCE,) then it is appropriate for the jury to return a
    >guilty verdict.
    
    My caps added for emphisis.  I believe that *is* what *I* have been saying
    all along.  However,  in reading .86 and .91 I do not believe that 
    is what you have been saying all along.  If I am incorrect in that
    then I stad corrected.
    
    fred();

    RE: .283  Fred
    
    >  if (( pc ) and (mennotes))
    >  If ( ! logical_rebuttal )
    >  {
    >	attack( person );
    >	attack( noting_style );
    >	attack( spelling );
    >  }
    
    Name this one "Fred's_smoke_screen()"... 

    RE: .284  Fred

    > My caps added for emphisis.  I believe that *is* what *I* have been 
    > saying all along.  However,  in reading .86 and .91 I do not believe 
    > that is what you have been saying all along.  If I am incorrect in that
    > then I stad corrected.

    You stand corrected.

    Your confusion may have arisen because I also stipulate that physical 
    evidence in rape cases can "support" both the accuser's *and* the 
    accused's versions of the story.  They both agree that penetration 
    occurred, but might disagree as to the reason for minor injuries suffered 
    by the accuser (for example.)

    In this case, it might very well come down to WHO the jury believes.
    It should NOT be automatic (and I've never said it should be) - but
    NEITHER should the accuser be automatically DIS-believed, either.

    If the two stories are equally credible, then the accused should get
    the benefit of the doubt.  If the accuser's story is more credible,
    then a guilty verdict would be appropriate.

    
    re .286
    
   > Your confusion may have arised because I also stipulate that physical 
   > evidence in rape cases can "support" both the accuser's *and* the 
   > accused's versions of the story.  They both agree that penetration 
   > occurred, but might disagree as to the reason for minor injuries suffered 
   > by the accuser (for example.)
    
    	Depends on the "evidence"  *any* tie goes to the accused.  A
        Jury *must* be (and again if you don't like it take it up
        witht the Supreme Court) convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt".
    
    if you can do that, then by all means (as I *have* stated repeatedly)
    send the accused to jail.
    
    fred();

    And if they don't eat all their spam, say their prayers, and clean
    their room. There will be no desirts for after din-din. Parfa rats
    anyone? :)

    RE: .287  Fred
    
    > Depends on the "evidence"  *any* tie goes to the accused.  A
    > Jury *must* be (and again if you don't like it take it up
    > witht the Supreme Court) convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt".
    
    In the Mike Tyson trial, the only physical evidence of a possible
    rape was "vaginal tearing."  The accuser claimed that this occurred
    as a result of forced penetration.  Tyson claimed it occurred
    because of his genital size.
    
    The accuser's testimony was more credible than Mike Tyson's testimony.
    
    > if you can do that, then by all means (as I *have* stated repeatedly)
    > send the accused to jail.
    
    The jury was convinced of Mike Tyson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
    and they returned a guilty verdict (even though BOTH their stories
    could conceivably be supported by the physical evidence.)
    
    The jury stated (after the trial) that the most convincing part of
    the case was the accuser's testimony (compared to Tyson's testimony,
    especially when he was caught telling lies about the differences in
    his grand jury testimony.)
    
    This is what I'm talking about.  When the accuser's testimony is more
    credible than the accused's testimony, there is NO TIE.  The jury can
    return a guilty verdict (even though it's basically a matter of her
    word against his.)

    
    re suzanne.
    
    If you won't buy what the Supreme Court has to say on the subject,
    then there's very little that little-ol' me can do to convince you
    to your satisfaction.  It's a waste of time to argue this anyway
    since the Supreme Court is the one who has the final say.
    
    Will likely be a long time before this changes whether you (or I)
    agree with them.  Last week the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a prison
    guard can be sued for thumping on a prisoner.  Now a prison guard
    must do his job with the knowledge that even if he defends his life
    he's going to likely end up in court with his word against a
    prisonfull of felons.  Majority openion -- Sandra Day O'Connon.
    Minority openion Clarence Thomas.
    
    fred();

    RE: .293  Fred
    
    > If you won't buy what the Supreme Court has to say on the subject,
    > then there's very little that little-ol' me can do to convince you
    > to your satisfaction.  It's a waste of time to argue this anyway
    > since the Supreme Court is the one who has the final say.
    
    Fred, my position on this is already supported by the Supreme Court.
    
    Notice that Mike Tyson *has* been found guilty (based on the testimony
    of the accuser.)  They didn't "automatically" believe her, but they
    did consider her testimony credible enough to convince them of Tyson's
    guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
    
    This is what I'm talking about.

     >If you won't buy what the Supreme Court has to say on the subject,
     >then there's very little that little-ol' me can do to convince you
     >to your satisfaction.  It's a waste of time to argue this anyway
     >since the Supreme Court is the one who has the final say.
    
    	How does the verdict in the Mike Tyson case contradict
    	what the "Supreme Court has to say on the subject?"
    
    RE: the prison guard case
    
    	The guards were NOT defending themselves against the prisoner;
        he was in chains while they were beating him.
    
    /Greg

    re Suzanne
    
    Tyson may well not be a good example.
    
    I believe that there was *other* cooberating evidence and witnesses.
    Also Mike Tyson's "defense" was extremely questinable--something
    like "she should have known she was going to be raped if she went
    with Tyson", which is a back handed admission of quilt.
    
    The Mike Tyson case is not closed yet.  I am not saying that I 
    beleive he is innocent or not, but I will be suprised if he
    doesn't get at least one re-trial since there was 1) some evicence
    that was not allowed by the judge 2) Witnesses (lawyers) stated that
    "the judge obviously didn't like Tyson", 3) a lawyer in the
    city where the trial took place reported that he overheard one of
    the jurors ("juror number 2") state that the trial was "rigged and
    out of the hands of the jury", and 4) many observers (lawyers) 
    stated that Tyson's defense did not seem to try very hard.
    
    fred();

    re .295
    
    >RE: the prison guard case
    
    >	The guards were NOT defending themselves against the prisoner;
    >    he was in chains while they were beating him.
    
    By product of this decision is, however, that any prison quard who
    now tried even to defend himself will find himself at the mercy
    of a courtfull of felons.
    
    Point is that the *real* problem is getting worse instead of better.
    It's cases like this that have made it so difficult for police and
    victims.  Apparently can't have it both ways.  Do you want protection
    from your Civil Rights being stepped on or do you want to make it
    easier to convict criminals.
    
    fred();

    RE: .296  Fred
    
    Well, actually, I'd heard (on the news) awhile back that the rumors
    about the case being "fixed" were already determined to be unfounded.
    
    The Tyson case presented no "eyewitnesses" to the rape (other than
    the accuser,) and the only physical evidence indicating rape was
    the condition of her body ("vaginal tearing.")  So, it still came
    down to "her word against his" - and they believed her.
    
    Again, it wasn't "automatic."  One of the members of the jury did
    state (to the press) that the accuser's testimony did most to convince
    the jury of Tyson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, however.

    
    re .298
    
    >and the only physical evidence indicating "rape" was
    >the condition of her body ("vaginal tearing.")  
    
    and the evidence that the judge denied was that the vaginal tearing
    *could* have been "natural causes".  I think Tyson's "defense" did
    him more harm than good.
    
    >So, it still came
    >down to "her word against his" - and they believed her.
    
    Now they must convince the appeals judges that Tyson got a fair 
    trial.  I've seen many a jury "convinced" only to have the case
    dismissed on appeal or at least given a new trial.  Could it
    be that the police as well as the victim are discouraged?
    
    fred();

    RE: .299  Fred
    
    > and the evidence that the judge denied was that the vaginal tearing
    > *could* have been "natural causes". 
    
    Expert testimony DID state in court that such damage (to the accuser)
    *could* have come from natural causes.
    
    They cited some stats on it, though, indicating that it only happens
    in something like 2% of the cases where such damage is present.

    re .300
    
    We already hashed this one once in 754.  I'll spare the noters a
    re-hash.  Suffice it to say that for better or worse, we have
    likely not seen the last of the Tyson case.
    
    fred();

    RE: .301  Fred
    
    Well, I do agree that we may be seeing more from the Tyson case...
    
    However, no one is challenging the case on the basis that a conviction 
    was won on the word of the accuser (without testimony from eyewitnesses 
    as to what traspired between the two in his hotel room.)
    
    It is valid in our legal system for testimony from a victim to carry
    enough weight to convince juries of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"
    (if the jury finds the victim's testimony more credible than that of
    the accused.)
    
    It's nothing new, although so few rape cases make it to trial that
    rape victims are seldom given the opportunity to TRY to convince a
    jury to convict alleged rapists.

    re .302
    
    Actually, if you think about it, the Tyson case is actually proof
    that police, DA's, Courts, Juries, *will* listen to victims, which,
    I believe is the *opposite* of what you were origionally trying to
    prove.  Whether or not the problem is "the system" (courts, appeals
    courts, etc) still remains to be seen.
    
    fred();

    re:.283, fred()
    
    you forgot the function label ... pit_bull().  :^)

    
    re. 30b
    
    actually the code in 283 *would* work for me...
    
    
    
    It would BEQL on the first "if" statement  8^).
    fred();

    RE: .303  Fred
    
    > Actually, if you think about it, the Tyson case is actually proof
    > that police, DA's, Courts, Juries, *will* listen to victims, which,
    > I believe is the *opposite* of what you were origionally trying to
    > prove. 
    
    Fred, I never set out to prove that our legal system has never ONCE
    listened to a rape victim in the entire history of our country.
    
    Our legal system doesn't listen often enough.  

    re .306
    
    
    >Our legal system doesn't listen often enough.  
    
    	On which we agree.  What we disagree on is *why* and *what*
    	to do about it?  (and on which we may have to agree to disagree
        at this point).  Is it *likely* to change in the near future?
    	If not, then what can we teach our daughters that gives
    	*them* control over *something* that *will* help prevent them
    	from becomming yet another statistic.  Ie.  The topic of this 
    	note....
    
    	fred();

    RE: .307  Fred
    
    >> Our legal system doesn't listen often enough.  
    
    > On which we agree.  What we disagree on is *why* and *what*
    > to do about it?  (and on which we may have to agree to disagree
    > at this point). 
    
    Quite true.
    
    > Is it *likely* to change in the near future?
    > If not, then what can we teach our daughters that gives
    > *them* control over *something* that *will* help prevent them
    > from becomming yet another statistic.  Ie.  The topic of this 
    > note....
    
    We can encourage our "daughters" to be careful (while assuring them
    that such precaution is not a slam against men as a group.)
    
    When some of our "daughters" *are* raped, we can refrain from yelling
    at them to "TRY [to prosecute] DAMMIT."  Women don't need a baseball
    bat to the head at a time like that (who does?)
    
    We must also let them know that they do not carry the entire burden
    of keeping themselves from being raped.  We need to send strong
    messages to young men that rape is a serious crime against another
    human being (a crime for which they can spend many years in prison.)
    We also need to keep working on the legal system (to work harder for
    successful prosecutions of rape cases.)

  <put on dr science hat [ahem]>

  In order to move something one needs to apply force. What is force? F=ma�
  Okay. So, we've got mass, now how about acceleration? And let's not forget
  friction, since this is not in a perfect world. So what am I saying here?
  What I am saying is that sometimes, in order to reach equilibrium, there
  *may* be a need to give the pendulum a good, hard shove, to give it the
  momentum it needs to overcome the friction it experiences. Initially the
  momentum will swing it into extreme regions, yet it eventually reaches
  equilibrium, because of the friction.

  <remove dr science hat [giggle]>

  One thing that I keep hearing throughout various discussions WRT rape is...

    What if the accused is *indeed* innocent? What then? Even if he is
    acquitted, just the fact that he has been accused could *literally*
    ruin his life.
        
  Isn't it just as possible that a womyn could claim rape when there wasn't
  any? Is it not possible that the night before it was seduction, yet the morn-
  ing after it was coercion? Isn't this part of the fear that *I* personally
  keep hearing in some men's notes?

  When I read discussions WRT what is/is not rape, whether rape is an act of
  violence, whether rape is an act of sex, etc. What I hear screaming out to me
  is this *fear* that *if* I were a man (and I am not) I could be charged with
  a rape, that *I* did *not* commit, at some future date. I'm not saying that
  the pendulum will necessarily swing to such an extreme (e.g, that *all* men
  who are accused of rape will be convicted). What I *am* saying is that when
  change occurs, sometimes the pendulum does tend to enter into extreme
  territories. And that some of the fears expressed here (assuming that I'm
  reading correctly) are quite understandable.

  To date, *I* believe victims of rape get wrung through the wringer. *I*
  believe that there is a tendency, by society in general, to lay some of the
  blame on the rape victim. That this tendency is the very thing which can free
  someone who would otherwise be convicted. *I* believe we, as a society, need
  to find a way to start the pendulum swinging in the other direction.

  Still, how do we do that and protect the innocent as well? I dunno...

  �ks, �ī

  BTW mods, if you think this belongs in a different topic, please feel free to
  move it (';

    .309 Well said.

    The part where you pointed out that, 'What if the accused is innocent. And
    his life is ruined?' What justice will prevail in his behalf? And as we
    are all witness to see that women/womyn are falsely accusing men of
    wife beatings, child molesting, etc to gain an upper hand in a divorce
    case. Their lives are ruined. There is no way for many of them to
    recoup their posture in a divorce.

    If "ruining someone's life" were really such a rabid concern of our
    society, we'd be more serious and intense with rape cases and more
    sensitive wrt the ruined lives of the rape victims.  But right now, it
    seems that the potentially ruined lives of men is being cited as a
    reason for maintaining the status quo, which is that, according to
    the statistics, 100 women's lives get ruined for every 2 of men's.  As
    a society, we seem comfortable with that ratio.  Changing things might
    up the men's side to, oh, say 5%?  I can see where those who make the
    decisions in this culture, (men), might find that horrifying and
    unacceptable.
    
    >We can encourage our "daughters" to be careful (while assuring them
    >that such precaution is not a slam against men as a group.)
    
    I agree, Suzanne, that this is the fine line you have to walk to both
    keep as safe as possible, and keep men's feathers from being ruffled,
    often a consequence-producing action in itself.  Women must act
    paranoid while assuring the world they have no real reason to do so.  
    Seems logical to me!  You don't tell the guy you can't get in his car
    because of what *he* might be, you take all the blame onto yourself and
    say you mustn't because of what it might make *you* be - you know,
    loose, fast, slutty - the kind of woman least likely to be protected
    against male assault in our culture.  You must assure him that you know 
    he's normal, of course, and that you're the one running the risk of being 
    "deviant" by this action.
    
    But it does accomplish the task of making sure that women as a group 
    are ready, willing and able to smile and be nice to men regardless of 
    the admitted threat that maleness often poses for them.
    
    Sandy
                 

    Wise choice, Herb.  Let's not bore the noters, ok?
    
    S.

    My earlier reply to this was deleted as a personal attack. I considered
    what I said to be a compliment. I respect the writing style that this bright
    woman uses that has the effect of embarrassing, belittling, and
    demeaning some men. Her style is used in ways that are consistently above
    board, and typically uses our own words. The net effect is often that
    we shoot ourselves in the foot with our own words. 
    
    
    				herb

    RE: .312
    
    >> and typically uses our own words
    
    Correction, the words George posted in a recent reply
    
    I find it rather amusing the Sandy decided to point the arrow 
    at all men when only ONE raised the issue
    
    I don't think the generalization was necessary; but her point
    is quite valid nontheless
    
    chris
    

    Can we sh*tcan the "all men" thing?  It's a nice little accusation when
    one has no defense but after lo these many years in notes, it has long 
    since grown transparent and has been used and successfully defended 
    against, ad nauseum.  We don't really have to go through it yet again, 
    do we?  When reading the vernacular, I trust we all know what is meant.  
    Because if you or anyone actually believes that "all" of any group of 
    people can be any one thing, y'all are more naive than I thought.  Or,
    I suppose, you could just think that *I'm* stupid and that *I* believe
    that's possible.  That's your priviledge.
    
    S.

    women don't mean ALL MEN when they say nasty things about men
    just those men who deserve to have nasty things said about them.

  re .311

  Sandy,

  I don't believe I said anything about 'maintaining status quo'. What I did
  say is that I can see how it is possible for some men to fear the swing of
  the pendulum  (not exactly in those words).  This does not  mean that the
  pendulum should not swing. I don't know what the statistics are or anything
  like that. What I *do* know (make that believe) is that change is rarely
  easy, and that the chance to go to the other extreme is a very real possib-
  ility.

  Sandy, I work with men forty-hours+ a week. I go to breaks with them. I eat
  lunch with them and we discuss issues such as those raised here. The thing
  is, when I listen to what these men have to say, I can empathize with their
  *very real* fear. Many of these men's perceptions are, 'Gee, now *everyone*
  is crying rape'. Even the 'brave and thought provoking article' eluded to
  it (read the section where it says, and I quote, "'I guess you could say
  I've been date-raped twice,' offered one woman matter of factly"). I'm sorry,
  but I have a *real* problem with statements that *I* perceive to be said
  lightly (IHMO, in almost a PCish manner) WRT something that is *SO* serious.

  And Sandy, I have heard womyn say exactly this, 'just so that their friends
  won't think that they sleep around,' as they put it (while the guy who was
  unjustly accused is standing there with this bewildered look on his face
  wondering why all of a sudden the womyn who used to talk to him suddenly
  won't even give him the time of day).

  Sandy, I'm not talking about status quos, ratios, and/or sides. This is not
  about sides. When I see statements like "Changing things might up the men's
  side to, oh, say 5%", I just don't understand them. Call me ignorant if you
  will, but I just don't. This is not about men vs womyn, or men winning and
  womyn losing, or vice versus. Any way you slice the bread, the victim of
  rape is the one who loses. And that victim can be any gender, any age, any
  creed.

  What I *am* talking about is that I am perceiving a general fear on the part
  of some (note, I did say some) men WRT what constitutes 'Date Rape'. Like
  one of the guys at lunch today said, "This day and age you'd really better
  know who it is your dating or you could end up with either a STD or a rape
  charge". Does that statement sound generalistic? You bet. Still, the fear
  *is* there, and *I* believe it *is* a valid fear.

  So after all that long-windedness what am I saying?

  I am in *FULL* agreement that we *DO* need to be a *LOT* more serious and
  intense with rape cases and more sensitive wrt the ruined lives of the rape
  victims. In fact, I believe *too* many rapist are allowed to go free. I
  believe that in order to change this, some innocent men may be caught up in
  the swing of the pendulum. Even so, I believe that the swing of the pendulum
  *IS* necessary. Still, just as much as we need to teach our young womyn that
  it's okay to say "No" and mean "NO" and that it's okay to say "Yes", we also
  need to teach them that crying rape so "mommy and daddy won't get mad" is
  unacceptable.

  �ks, �ī

    Thats it exactly, Herb, thanx.  And now we come to the real scary part
    which is that most often, a woman can't tell who is "nasty" and who is
    not.  The only thing "they", ("the bad guys"), have in common is their
    maleness.  The next common characteristic is that they already know us.
    
    S'now what?  Do we increase our "paranoia" or our danger level?  Do we
    have the right to be incredulous when our words are pointed to as
    examples of hate instead of the truth - examples of fear?
    
    Try to imagine a video game where you've got to interact with these
    beings to "get the prize" so to speak.  And the prize for women is the
    same as it is for men - a warm and satisfying love relationship.  But
    some of these beings are very nasty and with dire consequences.  Some
    just threaten, you know, they run the gamut.  Point is you don't know
    which one's going to actually "blast you out of the water".  How often
    do you think you might actually attain that prize?  How many "battle
    scars" might you collect along the way?  How soon before you curse the
    game?  How soon before you finally abandon such a futile endeavor where
    success seems so random despite your best efforts?  And where attaining
    success and approaching failure can masquerade as the same process?
    
    Lest anyone think this is from my personal experience, it isn't.  My
    understanding of men, (which apparently seems like hatred to those who
    only read the words and don't see the life being lived), has made me
    "lucky" and my experiences with them continue to be great.  But that
    isn't how the average American het woman's life goes.
    
    I'm sorry, Mr. or Ms. Devereaux, (related to "Golden Girl", Blanche?  
    My idol!  ;> )  I don't recall right now what you wrote and I know I
    wasn't dealing with it.
    
    S.

    <women don't mean ALL MEN when they say nasty things about men
    <just those men who deserve to have nasty things said about them.
    
    I intended that to be ironic
    e.g.
    
    If I were to say "women are bitches" I would not mean to be saying that 
    "All WOMEN are bitches", I would mean to be saying that only those women
    who deserve to have nasty things about them are bitches.
    
    
    
    

    Hi Sandy
    
    M Devereaux has a first name of Michelle - she was at the
    Men notes party.
    
    Bonnie

    Well that doesn't help me, Bon, I wasn't at the M-notes party.  Hi
    Michelle, nice to meet you.
    
    I know it was *meant* to be ironic, Herb, it just isn't.  It's simply 
    correct.  Personally, I think you can go right ahead and call women or 
    even all women b*tches, if you like.  What do I care?  But for me, I'm 
    comfortable having a bit of wariness rather than having hatred because 
    with the latter, I have no chance.  With wariness, the sweeties will pass 
    through the screen!
    
    Yessah!  :>   :>   :>
    
    Bon weekend, 
    
    S.                         

    well, Sandy if you'd read the party note you'd have known...:-) x 100
    
    have a good weekend yourself..
    
    hugs
    
    Bon

.316>    women don't mean ALL MEN when they say nasty things about men
.316>    just those men who deserve to have nasty things said about them.
    
    Say "women should be kept barefoot and pregnant" and see how many
    people take that to mean "all women."
    
    They can't see the forest for the trees.

    RE: .324  Mike Z.
    
    > Say "women should be kept barefoot and pregnant" and see how many
    > people take that to mean "all women."
    
    Do you think "Keep <one particular woman> barefoot and pregnant" sounds 
    less offensive?  Does "Keep <100, 1000, 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 women>
    barefoot and pregnant" sound less offensive (as long as it doesn't include 
    ALL women?)
    
    The idea is offensive in itself (whether it's about one woman or ALL
    of us.)
    
    When people talk about the problem of male violence (including rape,)
    it's pretty obvious that no one's talking about "all men."  If "all
    men" (in our society or in the world) committed violent crimes, our
    country/world would be an unrecognizable mess.  It's rather pointless
    to insist on disclaimers such as "some men" every time the subject
    is raised.

    Do you think the women in that phrase means all women?

    RE: .326 & .327  Mike Z.
    
    > Do you think the women in that phrase means all women?
    
    No, of course I don't think it means all women.
    
    The phrase "women should be kept barefoot and pregnant" is objectionable 
    to me whether it refers to one woman or a billion of the women on our 
    planet.

    
    Referring to a class of people, by saying "men are X" refers to men,
    all men, whether the speaker means it or not.
    
    Usually some phrase that deals with their own class will drive that
    point home. For example, a black man would realize that when he hears
    "black men are X", the speaker, whether they admit it or not, has just
    said something about him.
    
    By the way, one shouldn't rewrite basic language rules to cover for
    Freudian slips like "men are rapists."

    RE: .329  Mike Z.
    
    > Referring to a class of people, by saying "men are X" refers to men,
    > all men, whether the speaker means it or not.
    
    When someone says "Men are physically stronger than women," does this
    mean that every man on the planet is physically stronger than every
    woman on the planet?  Of course not.
    
    When it comes to factual data about men or women, it isn't merely up
    to "the language" to decide how many men and women are being discussed.
    
    > By the way, one shouldn't rewrite basic language rules to cover for
    > Freudian slips like "men are rapists."
    
    It is an absolute fact that only some men are rapists.  Language
    rules can't change facts merely by phrasing something one way or
    another.
    
    If someone said "Men are <adjective>," it would be a subjective
    description of men as a class (which I, too, might regard as an
    insult to all men if the adjective were insulting.)
    
    What I usually see happening (especially in notes,) though, is
    that women are accused of insulting all men after making statements 
    that do NOT fit the "men are XXX" template.
    
    As an example, George accused Sandy of talking about "all men" in
    her reply .311, although she didn't make a single statement in the
    form of "men are XXX."  
    
    It does make for a nice rathole, though (as we've seen time and time
    again in discussions like these.)

I've read through a great deal of these replies.  There is a lot of banter
back and forth but underlying it I think I heard something that I would
like answered.  It sounds like some people are saying that the police treat
rape victims differently than other victims.  From things that I've read I
don't doubt this.  My question is do they treat rape victims differently or
this type of crime differently?  Let me explain.

In 1969 I was in Naval Ordanance Training in Long Beach California.  I was
18 years old and *VERY* naive.  I got picked up by two men.  The passenger
got out of the car and let me in putting me between the two of them in the
front seat.  We drove around for a while drinking and joking around.  When
they started to get amourous I asked to get out.  They let me out allright
but when they finished letting me out I was beaten badly enough to be
hospitalized.  The Police questioned me about the incident but mostly they
lectured me about why I got in the car, why I was drinking, did I have a
relationship with one or both of these guys etc.

So my question asks if other men have had experience with the Police like
this or is my incident isolated and this type of treatment is unique to
women?

Patrick

    re:  .331
    That's a really excellent point, Patrick.  In fact, I had been thinking
    about the Dahmer (sp?) case and about the bleeding 14 year old boy who the
    police gave back to Dahmer because they thought it was just a fight
    between homosexual lovers (i.e., whatever treatment the kid was
    getting, the police thought he obviously wanted it or deserved it or
    was asking for it).
    
    So it may be that the police treat sexual crimes differently from other 
    crimes.  No one here is saying that the problem is a male plot against 
    women.  But since most rapes are committed by men against women, the 
    problem of police treating rape differently is perceived as a problem for 
    women more often than a problem for men.
    
    							- Vick

    re .331 Yes, Patrick I asked a similar question in .226 wrt homosexual
    rape.
    
    
    
    				h

    re .332
    
    If the matter is one of sexual crimes rather than crimes against
    women by men, then the tension here ought to be defusable.
    (i'm not sure it's a matter of sexual crimes, but it sounds useful)
    How about 'crimes against the person'? which would include mugging,
    raping etc but wouldn't include armed robbery or murder in the
    commission of a crime (say bank robbery)?
    

From what I read, Police treat 'Domestic Violence' in much the same way; ie
they are reluctant to believe that the victim is really a victim unless
there is very obvious physical evidence.  Unfortunately by the time there
is evidence it's often a cadaver.  So what do you suppose is in a Police
Officer's mind in these situations?

A S&M lovers quarrel?
Kinky sex that is none of my business?
Don't know which is the real victim?
Maybe the bloody one asked for it?

In other words how does a Civil Employee who has taken an oath to 'Serve
and Protect' turn his/her back on someone who is lying in a hospital bed
barely able to look out of one swollen eye.  In my case I would have gotten
a better response it I had told them that the guy's unleashed dog did it to
me!

Patrick

Jeez, you knock off noting for a few days and look what happens!

RE:  Law Enforcement & Rape

Police involved in the investigation of an alleged crime should not believe
anyone.  They should gather the facts and turn them over to the DA (with perhaps
some sort of conclusion).  I don't see how they can conduct an investigation
without asking some questions which may imply that they don't believe the ac-
cuser.  However, from what's been written here, and from what I've seen of the
recent high-profile rape cases, they do ask a lot of irrelevant questions, and
they should be trained to not ask these (and subject to discipline for stepping
out of line).  Stuff like "Why were you wearing that skimpy outfit?" and "Did you
enjoy the rape?" are respectively irrelevant and ridiculous.

The DA's office would be irresponsible to bring cases to trial that they didn't
think, for whatever reason, that they can win.  As Annie admitted, they probably
couldn't have won her case.  The things that need to be changed are the attitudes
on the part of the judiciary which make such a strong case as Annie's currently
not winable.  The fact that her prior intimate relationship with her rapist was
thought to weaken her case is *horrifying*.  By implication a woman has no right
to refuse sex to anyone with whom she's willingly had it in the past.  It's
exactly this type of bullsh*t thinking that needs to be expunged from our system
of "justice".

I suggested it previously, and I still think its a good idea--some sort of
sex-crime review board should be set up at the state level as a place to appeal
poorly handled rape cases, and empowered to reprimand the justices and the DA's
staff, and impeach them for repeated mishandlings.

                                                    -- Mike

                                                       -- Mike

    
    Rape can happen in many different forms. After reading this string I
    believe Fred was righteously raped by a core group of righteous mind
    benders. 

    I've stayed out of MENNOTES because of the slanted moderating and
    Suzanne. I see nothing has changed. 

         THIS OF COURSE IS JUST MHO.

    			Wayne
    

    He brought it on himself, Wayne, by his intemperate statements.

    Sure, sure, blame the victim...
    
    ;>   ;>   ;>   ;>   ;>   ;>   ;>
    
    S.