We apparently don't like women as much as we say

[theboss]

Things I've read today on DU.

Older, highly educated women should know how to handle a rape.
If you go to man's hotel room as a woman, you should know what to expect.
If you don't report a rape immediately, you aren't credible.
The governorship of Virginia is more important than a rape accusation.
The MeToo movement might be a Republican front.
Bad sex is not rape.
Women often feel guilt after sex and that can lead to false rape accusations.

[Loki Liesmith]

1. Lol post the actual statements please

Not ones you’ve “edited” to support your point .

[58Sunliner]

4. No editing needed, just look at the threads.

[Demit]

57. I'm one of the posters who posted about hotel rooms. Here's what I said:

"I'm a woman too. And I agree, hotel rooms have connotations that other locations don't. If your intent in going to a man's room is to make out with him just a little and no more, you better be ready for how you're going to end the encounter. You should be calculating outcomes at all times. Women are not helpless."

I'll stand by that all day long.

[leftynyc]

102. Agree 100%

I'm a 57 year old woman. Don't EVER go to a hotel room with a man you aren't planning to have sex with. Stay in the lobby or the bar and make out in a booth.

[theboss]

5. #1

Because a 14 year old is a child who likely does not have the emotional maturity or wherewithal to know how to handle a sexual assault while a grown, highly educated woman (especially one trained in this field) is much better equipped to manage such a situation.

[EffieBlack]

38. Nice try, taking my comment out of context of the larger discussion

And since you were an eager participant in that very discussion, surely you know that you blatantly mischaracterized my post. I suggest you delete your post, not only because it is misleading, but because if you have to play these kinds of games to make your point, you've lost the argument.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11784284

Poster 1: How is this different from the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh? She didn't file a police report, sustain injuries, text friends (texting wasn't an option then, but she didn't tell anyone for years), or speak out before he became famous, either. Do we believe or not believe accusers on the basis of the politics of the alleged perpetrator?

Me: Two big differences: Ford was 14 or 15, Tyson was 25. Ford's encounter with Kavanaugh was in 1982, Tyson's encounter with Fairfax occurred in 2004.

That doesn't mean that Dr. Tyson's story isn't true. But the women and the times they were operating in were very different.

Poster 1: That's true. I was just commenting on the criteria in the OP, which were limited to whether there was any corroboration. There are many other factors in both situations, and there always will be. IMO the OP's criteria were too narrow and placed too heavy a burden on the complainant. I believed both Dr. Ford and Keith Ellison because of factors other than direct corroboration, but I'm not sure whom to believe in this case.

YOU: I don't understand how the age differences are remotely significant? Can we all be honest? Seriously?

We didn't like Kavanaugh. And Ford was credible.

We apparently like Fairfax. And Tyson is credible. But I guess that just cancels each other out.

ME: Because a 14 year old is a child who likely does not have the emotional maturity or wherewithal to know how to handle a sexual assault while a grown, highly educated woman (especially one trained in this field) is much better equipped to manage such a situation, so comparing what they did in the aftermath of an assault is a faulty measure.

POSTER 3: BS. Education does not equal self-defense. What field was she trained in? Hand to hand combat?

ME: You misunderstood my post and what I was responding to

I wasn't commenting on whether or how a woman fends off a rapist. Read the comments I responded to understand before making incorrect assumptions about my point. Context matters in discussions involving multiple people and comments.

[theboss]

40. No. I leave it as is. And I will add that you have posited that this is a 1940s style false

accusation of a black woman and the fact that a black woman makes no difference because the only relevant party is the black man.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11775767

That thread also contains a suggestion that this is a Jacob Wohl-led conspiracy. Because, why not?

[ehrnst]

65. That posit is completely off the mark.

And insulting to effieblack to boot.

[theboss]

77. Eh...he'll get over it, I'm sure

[Empowerer]

88. So you admit you insulted her.

Effie's a she, btw.

[Empowerer]

42. You've completely mischaracterized Effie's post

Are you so desperate to make a point - illogical as it is - that you resort to this kind of tactic?

[pnwmom]

89. That makes sense. A 14 year old child is of course less able to handle just about any situation.

Not sure of the point, however.

[theboss]

7. Last one

One thing I have learned is sometimes, when attraction wears off, people tend to characterize the encounters differently because the rose colored glasses aren't on to look through

[ehrnst]

67. So we should simply not even try, and just automatically disregard or trust

one gender's veiwpoint of any and all encounters over the other in all circumstances?

Isn't that what has caused so many problems in the past - an inability to think in anything other than binary, dualistic, one size fits all, oversimplified terms?

It's certainly easier than doing the real work of investigating, and taking each case on it's merits WITHOUT retaining the baggage of the past attitudes that assigned credibility to only one gender when they diverge.

[theboss]

9. You can match it up

But at some point we have to stop saying; "I understand that the victim didn't want to file a police report".

I'm sorry, but I think we've gotten to the point that we can stop excusing people for not reporting these incidents when they happen, not 15-20 years later.

[EllieBC]

11. Here:

People in general
Male, female, gender neutral, etc. should be very careful to NOT get themselves into situations where they have to say NO to get out of a situation they should never have gotten into in the first place.

And

Bad foreplay is not sexual assault; bad consensual sex is not rape.
Check, please.

And

Read her statement issued via her attorneys
I think the part where she states that Fairfax's kiss was "not unwelcome" tends to support his version that whatever happened was consensual.

[58Sunliner]

2. I can't believe the BS I have seen today on these boards.

Every vile stereotype has been trotted out and given full display. Sick.

[zaj]

3. Private interactions are a hard thing to police

Without evidence what do you do?

[manor321]

6. Tell us the actual rules of how to adjudicate something like this.

Instead of criticizing, propose an actual fair way of dealing with cases like this.

[theboss]

8. I honestly thought we had with "Believe All Women"

Apparently, we have differing standards now.

[manor321]

13. That is not an answer

Laws must be written generally so they can be applied fairly. "Believe all women" clearly fails this test.

It even discriminates against men, since you don't say "believe all persons".

The problem here is some who expect a Roman-style gladiator thumb up or down thing with no due process. Then they get pissed because of due process.

[theboss]

17. What law would have helped Ms. Ford regarding Kavanaugh

You write the law for the circumstance of when a woman confronts a powerful man with a very old, unproveable accusation.

[ehrnst]

63. If laws could accomplish that, why would we even need investigations?

That's what investigations are for.

Yes, they have been stacked against women, just as public opinion has. This does not mean that we go the opposite direction and throw out any process of looking into things.

You seem to think that there is no balance, no possible way to determine what may or may not have happened.

You seem to think that there is nothing between "dismiss the word of any and all women," or "never question the word of any or all women."

That's certainly not true of the discussion I've seen on DU.

[theboss]

71. There's no mechanism or institution for investigating

I was 100 percent against the FBI investigating Kavanaugh, because I knew they wouldn’t be able to solve anything. Then he could scream “no evidence.”

[ehrnst]

72. So you think that we should skip investigations altogether?

I'm not seeing you offer any alternative.

And wasn't that what we had been dealing with before Me Too? That one gender was always untrustworthy in these situations?

How is that really any different, other than to say, "Well, it's the other's side's turn now?"

[theboss]

76. You need to tell me the who, the how, and the why?

Who is doing the investigating? The FBI? A Senate fucking subcommittee? The Daughters of the American Revolution?

How are they investigating? Do they have subpoena power? A budget?

Why are they investigating? To determine if criminal charges are warranted? In order to write a report everyone will tear apart in six seconds? Does their final decision have any force behind it?

There is no solution to this problem.

The way I've been handing it is simple: If I think the woman is credible and I don't see an obvious "revenge" motive, I believe her.

[ehrnst]

94. As you pointed out, we have law enforcement.

They are tasked with this. If the statute of limitations is past, then that's not an option. There is no "who, the how, and the why" for every single case. Just as I tell anti-choicers, there is no way that we can legislate or submit to a tribunal the reason a woman does not want to carry a pregnancy to term. We trust that physicians and women can make ethical decisions concerning the woman/girl's competency and remain within medical ethics. We acknowledge that there may be cases where a woman/girl is being coerced, but it should not be assumed that women/girls are forced into this by an abuser.

No "all or nothing," binary "a woman is only competent/credible if she chooses to complete a pregnancy" solutions exist, because people are human beings. You want a simple solution to a complicated issue? Good luck with that.

We have investigators, because society as a whole can't always just ask theboss for a ruling on whether a woman is as you put it, "credible or not," that is the current mechanism available to us, fallible as it is. I imagine you are quite busy.

As for investigating, it can be a hedge against those who may go to the press with stories are not always on the up and up, particularly when it comes to politics:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/us/washington-post-roy-moore-project-veritas.html

And .... no, I am not stating that this is the case with Vanessa Tyson, or anyone other than Jamie T. Phillips. I am saying that investigations can sometimes find out what did not happen, and can prevent "Believe women" from being weaponized for political purposes against those of us who do believe women.

You have stated in previous posts that we should always simply take the position of any woman who is accusing a man of sexual misconduct, and that is the solution to the problem and anyone who thinks otherwise "does not like women." At least on DU, as per your OP.

What changed your mind to, "There is no solution to this problem?"

Also, what makes a woman "credible or not credible" for you? You need to tell me the who, the how, and the why.

[zaj]

22. "Believe all women" and "Innocent until proven guilty"...

... create tension, and rightly so.

It's hard to police private behavior, and unfortunately powerful people can exploit that fact. But all people, both victims and abusers, get to start with the presumption of innocence.

Both in court and in public... How easily one loses that presumption depends on the evidence. Northam lost his Instantly because a photo existed on his own yearbook page.

Not proof, but damn close.

How does anyone provide support about a disputed, (currently) isolated, private encounter?

I don't have a good, universal answer.

[ehrnst]

62. Indeed. Anyone who demands a universal answer, or characterizes "me too" as

simplistically as "Never question any woman, in any circumstance of an accusation" might be someone with an agenda, and not an agenda that includes measured, intelligent discussion.

[pnwmom]

34. That didn't work with Crystal Mangum, did it? There is a very small but real group of accusers

with false allegations. But one category that must be considered carefully are those who claim to have recovered suppressed memories, as Tyson does.

I think it's too early to know with Tyson and Fairfax where the truth lies or even if we'll ever know.

[ehrnst]

61. You mean "Believe women?"

You seem to misunderstand the actual #me too movement, which is about believing women as a society, in a way that we have not, and believed men's stories automatically. It's not about granting all individuals unquestioning credibility because of their gender.

This is a different statement than than "take the literal word of every each and every single woman in every single accusation fully and in the same way with no question as the only possible factual report, or you are doubting all women about all encounters. "

No one has said that. Except you.

To say that is to disregard any investigation or due dilligence... and that is not what the women's movement is about at all, nor what justice for women requires.

Where did you get that idea?

And before you go there, no, this is not about Vanessa Tyson's claim. This is about your characterization of Me Too.

[treestar]

84. That's absurd, no one advocates that

You have to evaluate each case.

There is some concern that at one time the woman was never believed and her complaint dismissed and the incident blamed on her. That's what they are getting at. Give the woman a fair chance.

[Mystery sage]

12. Yes kinda of like an investigation

[Hortensis]

10. Speak for yourself? I'm a woman.

I like us just fine, and I don't say these things, but I'm not throwing anyone, male, female, black, white, under the bus on the basis of a single allegation. One, moreover, that the WaPo investigated and both found questionable and without any supporting information.

You compared to Kavanaugh elsewhere, but he's a man with a very long and varied history of many highly questionable, some clearly illicit, and some probably illegal political activities, plus many allegations by many witnesses of bad character and even possibly criminal acts. Justification for investigation was available, but further investigation was blocked by the Republicans, who'd spent years gathering and locking away of every bit of Kavanaugh's history they could find. His entire record during the Bush II administration included, but what they didn't manage to hide was potentially damning. This started before they nominated him 3 times to the appellate level well over a decade ago and continued right up through his confirmation hearing for SCOTUS last fall. Of course, at that time, they managed to block interviews of many witnesses who came forward with information.

Whatever the truth about Fairfax, comparison with Kavanaugh with his decades of very dishonorable, unethical work history, plus two credible accusers and many corroborating witness testimonies regarding both, is itself questionable.

[regnaD kciN]

49. You, like Fairfax, are mischaractizing the Post's conclusion...

They said they decided not to publish because the accuser’s allegations couldn’t be corroborated, NOT because they were in themselves “questionable.” In fact, when Fairfax made a similar claim (charging that the Post has “found many red flags and inconsistencies”), the paper had to respond in their statement denying that this was true.

[melman]

14. Also

Saying "fuck that bitch" is an understandable reaction.

[Fla_Democrat]

26. Maybe he had been listening to Bert Kreischer

and it was the first thing he could think of........

[Bradshaw3]

28. OMG

Saying that in a meeting of a large organization would likely get you suspended, if not fired. Unbelievable.

[grossproffit]

80. Wow.

[Fresh_Start]

15. 2/3s of rape victims still don't report the crime to the police

and 99% of the rapists go free even if its reported to the police

Remind me again, why women should go to the police?

If the woman self-blames she is less likely to report it...
If the woman suspects she won't be believed she is less likely to report it...

[wildflower]

51. And if she doesn't report it,

People say, "I don't believe her. Why didn't she report it at the time?"

[Fresh_Start]

59. There is no good out of reporting rape for the individual woman

and most of us don't have what it takes to suffer all of those indignations for the public good

[leftynyc]

105. Can I see a link to

that 99% going free even if reported? I've never seen that.

[Glamrock]

16. Good Christ!

Unreal...

[melman]

18. Almost forgot

It would really "help her case" if she had sustained injuries.

[theboss]

19. I missed that one.

That's....problematic.

[theboss]

21. We haven't even touched on the right-wing conspiracy stuff

I am not to familiar with the situation in Virginia, but it sounds like a "hit job" to me, and who do the repig snakes want to put in.

[atreides1]

48. Corey Stewart!!!

He's got the Neo-Confederate vote, the KKK vote, the White Nationalist/Alt Right vote, the religious fanatic vote, and the we hate the fact that women and blacks even have rights vote!!!

Put him in the governor's mansion and in the first 6 months of his administration, some white people wearing black face, won't really seem that terrible!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corey_Stewart


In May 2017, while speaking at Temple Rodef Shalom in Fairfax County, Stewart blamed progressives in the United States for an uptick in anti-Semitic incidents throughout the United States, saying, "Today most of the anti-Semitic bigotry is not coming from the right. It's coming from the left. We have to face it."


In April 2017, Stewart compared the removal of Confederate statues to the atrocities committed by ISIS. He posted on Twitter, "It appears ISIS has won. They are tearing down historical monuments in New Orleans now too. It must end. Despicable!" In his defense of Confederate monuments, he compared "those who wanted to remove the statue to tyrants and Nazis". Without Confederate symbols, he said at another event, "we lose our identity"

During the campaign, Stewart distinguished himself among Virginia politicians by not condemning the white supremacists who marched in the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017. Stewart said that the counterprotesters at the rally were to blame for "half the violence" and he condemned fellow Republicans who expressed disapproval of the white supremacist march.[45] However, Stewart later said, "I have always condemned the KKK and similar groups."

[phylny]

66. Thank you.

My 91-year-old dad, a Trump-loving, Obama-hating Republican asked about the situation. Actually, it started out, "There's a lot happening in Virginia!" I braced for his crap (I love him, but oh, the crap....) but he listened when I said, "Look - I voted for Tom Perriello in the primary. Then, in the general election, the choice was between Corey Stewart and Ralph Northam. There was no choice."

There was no choice. We worked so hard - so hard - to elect Democrats in the Commonwealth. So freaking hard to get a chance to stop the dirty tricks and the gerrymandering and all the other crap we have to deal with from Virginia Republicans. I'm exhausted and I can't even think about it, but I just know Stewart was a non-starter, and that Republicans here would stop at nothing to control the 2020 redistricting.

[Autumn]

60. This actually made my jaw drop.

She just remembered it last week, and thought it was time to do something about it.
She will swear by the Great Pumpkin. My guess is that the perjury prevention coaching was pro bono.

[smirkymonkey]

20. I certainly hope all of these posts were alerted on and removed.

None of them are acceptable. In fact, they are sickening.

[theboss]

23. Oh you sweet summer child

You can join if you want.

[smirkymonkey]

31. What is that supposed to mean?

I have been working all day and only checked in periodically. I have not seen any of the posts you mentioned, nor was I asked to be on a jury. If I had, I would have alerted and voted to have the posts removed.

[theboss]

33. It's a line from GOT

I use it whenever someone is surprised that people are awful.

[smirkymonkey]

37. Oh, ok.

Never saw GOT.

[EllieBC]

45. It pre-dates GoT.

Basically though it means someone who is never seen a winter. Someone young. It’s used online though when someone expresses that they cannot believe what they are witnessing.

[regnaD kciN]

50. The only time I was asked to serve on a jury today...

...it was over the question of whether pointing out the double-standard in reactions here between this and Kavanaugh constituted “attacking Democrats.”

[EllieBC]

24. I alerted on 2. Still there.

Rapists are ok if they have the proper political affiliation.

[theboss]

29. I alerted on one, which I think is only the second time in my history here I've alerted

It survived.

[Hortensis]

54. Yes, there's a whole lot of shit-stirring going on today.

Frankly, the only thing less tolerable to me than mindless mobbery is deliberate inciting.

[ehrnst]

73. +1000. (nt)

[demmiblue]

25. It is truly bizarre. n/t

[mcar]

27. Links?

Older, highly educated women should know how to handle a rape.
If you go to man's hotel room as a woman, you should know what to expect.

[LAS14]

46. Here's one.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11784016

[mcar]

53. Thanks

[Bradshaw3]

32. It is very troubling

If this woman had accused a white republican the people who are making excuses would all be on her side.

[theboss]

36. Yep.

Here's a fun one:

She told not a single, solitary soul about this until he was elected, not one. No other person has come forward with anything like this against him. The Washington Post investigated this, with her help, and found nothing, not a thing, to support her claim. So we now apparently have the rule, that some woman, and it apparently has to be a woman, comes forward 13 years after the fact, say so and so raped me, and no matter how many people voted for so and so, the people of that area instead gets the polar opposite. If this is going to be the rule then why bother having elections at all. If this works, I bet my governor will be next.

[Bradshaw3]

41. I wish people would think before posting things they may not believe

One poster said that she shopped this story around, a clear implication that it was for sale. Others are calling it a hitjob with no proof. Some seem to be going to great lengths to show "support" for Fairfax by looking for reasons to not believe her or going after the accuser in degrees small and large. Isn't that what repubs do?

[theboss]

43. I was told she "shopped" it to a right-wing site

So. There you go.

[Iggo]

35. You got a mouse in your pocket?

[LAS14]

44. Yeah, it's weird what we're seeing on DU today. Has anyone studied...

... authors' histories?

[sarisataka]

47. It's complicated

And unfortunately has very little to do with justice for the victim or protecting the falsely accused

[CousinIT]

52. The REAL problem:

Many people just don't give a damn when women or girls are abused, sexually assaulted, or raped.

The bottom line is simply: "I don't care"

Complete indifference.

[Ms. Toad]

69. Yup.

I'm just surprised at some of the posters displaying this attitude.

[Trumpocalypse]

122. Very true

and sad.

[uponit7771]

55. Nah, just not allowing the ratfucking ... #metoo doesn't mean guilt by accusation. That's unwise

[theboss]

58. Stop saying "Ratfucking" until you learn what it is

That goes for all of you people who apparently watched All the President's Men but never fucking read it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. Ratfucking, of course was making up stories out of whole cloth to discredit Nixon's opponents.

It wasn't exploiting inherent vulnerabilities.

[uponit7771]

82. I know what it means, in this context its changing #metoo into guilt by accusation vs taking an

... accusation seriously enough to investigate.

Ratfucking was Nixon's crews making shit up or provoking FUD

[bpj62]

85. Nixon's Henchmen

Donsld Sigretti, apologies for any mispelling and Roger Stone along with the group known as the plumbers were the self described "Ratfuckers". They messed with oppositions campaign offices, they spread rumors and eventually they got caught in the Watergate Burglary. Who do you think got the info out there about Senator Eagleton psychiatric visits which caused him to leave the campaign in the fall of 72. Ratfucking still goes on today. My brother was a political operative in the Clinton campaign and they engaged in the practice.
People are using the term in association with what is occurring in Virginia.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

56. Don't forget: it's ok to call her a "bitch" in front of staff if you are angry.

[ehrnst]

64. I had not heard that accusation of Justin Fairfax.

Do you have a source?

[EffieBlack]

74. NBC reported that a "source" told them that

[Demit]

75. Oh jeez. Did the source request anonymity b/c they weren't authorized to speak?

I am thoroughly disgusted by how automatically & casually news outlets grant anonymity these days. Also relying on just the one source, not getting corroboration from a second one. This amounts to nothing more than a gossip item. Shame on NBC.

[brooklynite]

79. how many reports of what goes on in the White House have you complained about?

[Demit]

96. That is a deeply silly response.

I don't know what your basis is for challenging me here, but "don't believe everything you hear" is a well-known piece of wisdom. I take what anonymous sources say with a grain of salt. That goes for rumormongers in any situation.

[EllieBC]

81. So only anon sources count if it's something we want to hear?

Like anon sources reporting from the other side of the aisle? Those anon sources are credible? But an anon source saying something about someone we like is not credible?

[theboss]

91. Anon sources inside the White House are credible

Inside the State House of Virginia, not so much?

Apparently accusations against Republican men are credible too, but those against Democrat men need some serious review.

[ehrnst]

95. No, anonymous sources in the White House are not automatically credible.

Where did you hear that strawman?

[Eliot Rosewater]

121. DemocRAT men?

WTF

[Demit]

93. I think I made it plain that anonymous sources are a problem.

And that newspeople using them is a problem. Your extrapolation of what I said is your own fancy.

[brooklynite]

97. The point is that nobody here complains when an anonymous source makes a Rep look bad

[ehrnst]

98. I always take anonymous sources with a grain of salt, because they could be

trying to leak misinformation.

So, no, I don't "complain" but I also don't automatically believe that it's accurate.

[Demit]

104. Your point, maybe. My point is that printing a rumor is not the same as reporting a fact.

I don't "complain" about rumor or gossip. I just discount it until something real happens that gives it credence.

[Kingofalldems]

70. Got links on that?

[guillaumeb]

78. I read 4 of them today.

No need for links.

[treestar]

83. Most of us agree with none of those

that doesn't mean every man accused is always guilty.

[demmiblue]

86. Another one:

Certainly.

Even if the police did nothing, her report would have shown she is serious.
Clearly she is not.

If Kavanaugh is allowed a lifetime appointment, then Fairfax can have 3 more years as an elected official.

[TDale313]

87. Sadly, there is a fair amount of misogyny and rape apology

On DU. Sorry, but it’s true. The Right is worse on these issues, but by no means own them exclusively.

[melman]

90. Had to get a screenshot of this one

or else people would have thought I made it up. Unbelievable




name cropped to avoid "call out"

[EllieBC]

92. That one is vile.

Disgusting. Apparently some members here hold the same view as republicans when it comes to sexual assault.

[ehrnst]

106. It's been removed. It appears to be a troll, and not representative of DU.

Many, many trolls have popped up in those threads trying to stir shit.

[ehrnst]

99. There are a **lot*** of shit-stirring trolls that have popped up since this situation

with the Democratic leadership of VA started.

There are many "socks" that are being activated.

A quick search of DU indicates that this post was removed, so I have to wonder if it was indeed a troll trying to give people "ammunition" to bolster claims concerning "DU" in general.

[melman]

100. The post was not removed

It's still there in the "BREAKING: Statement from Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax" thread.

[ehrnst]

101. I couldn't see it in a search, but I'll look at that thread. (nt)

[ehrnst]

103. Actually, it has been removed.

I think you saw a troll, and not something that is openly thought and tolerated on DU.

I have to wonder why you would even post on a site where you thought that was the case.

[EllieBC]

107. There were several posts and 1 thread yesterday

asking how a woman could be forced to give oral sex. And people agreeing they didn’t understand it. Are there suddenly that many naive people here? I don’t think so.

[ehrnst]

108. I didn't see those threads. Can you post links to them so I can take a look?

Just a link to the OP will be fine, no need to provide the actual post.

I've seen several "sock" accounts reactivate after years to post on the threads on this issue.

Not to say that they are all socks or trolls, but I'm keeping track.

[EllieBC]

109. Here's one:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11784230

The author self deleted at the end but most of the responses are still there.

There was another post that was hidden.

[ehrnst]

110. Thank you.

I think that's a sock.

[EllieBC]

111. The replies of people agreeing aren't.

That entire post and thread are full of RW talking points. She didn’t report it right away. She went to his hotel room. She kissed him consensually.

[ehrnst]

114. I don't see anyone agreeing with the removed post that was referenced... just disgust.

No, that particular vile comment is not = to what the other posters were saying.

Not seeing "RW talking points."

[EllieBC]

116. There's an entire thread

Actually 2 threads. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11784230


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11783513


Full of:

Read her statement issued via her attorneys
I think the part where she states that Fairfax's kiss was "not unwelcome" tends to support his version that whatever happened was consensual.

And


Bad foreplay is not sexual assault; bad consensual sex is not rape.
Check, please.

^this one is a longtime poster with over 40k posts.

And

omething I have never understood.
First of all, I’m female. I worked in corporate America for decades, attending conferences, company meetings, and industry shows with many opportunities for men and women to communicate on both business and personal levels. Here’s what I have never understood. What is it you expect to happen when you go with a man you’ve recently met to his hotel room? Am I wrong in thinking that such willingness is a clear signal to a male because a public bar or restaurant is clearly the place to go if all you want is to get better acquainted? Maybe I’m just ill informed or naive. What am I missing here?

And

Full disclosure, I've gone to hotel rooms and knew exactly what I was getting into.
And it wasn’t to play a game of tiddlywinks

And

I'm sorry you deleted response #102 because....
.... I saw the possibility of a helpful 3 way conversation. I'm like UniteFightBack in that psychological intimidation just doesn't rate with me as a reason to let oneself be raped. But I have to admit that it's because I don't understand it. It's a failure of imagination on my part. You seem to understand it. What do you think of the idea of focusing on getting women to "unite, fight back." If strength or weaponry isn't in play, don't let him do it.

I treat workplace intimidation as a whole separate category, a legal thing like black mail. We need to out all the perpetrators of male privilege with solidarity


A whole bunch of people who think consensual kissing means you are entitled to sex, Women should not go to hotel rooms if they aren’t expecting sex, and no one knows how women can be raped without physical force.

Oh and let’s not forget that the backhanded accusation that she’s just calling it rape because it was bad sex. Those are all right wing talking points. You can pretend they don’t exist but they are actually here.

[ehrnst]

117. There are some statements there that have been a part of the #meetoo movement

in their discussions on various think pieces, so no, they are not all "RW" talking points.

And again... no one was agreeing with that poster whose post has been removed, as was backhandedly implied by the poster above.

[melman]

113. It was still there when I posted that it was still there

I don't know. Could well be a troll but the person has been here since 2004.


And I did not say not say it was "openly thought and tolerated'. As you know.


I only said that it was there. Which it was.


As to the rest of that I have to wonder why you think I would take that bait.

[ehrnst]

115. No bait.

But see what you want to see.



You were replying in agreement with the OP, which is ranting that these things are "openly thought and tolerated" on DU, and that DU "apparently doesn't like women as much as we say," and presents those snippets as evidence.

Yes?

[MrGrieves]

112. I agree 100%

I have ran message boards, forums and online communities for a while and DU is a haven for this activity. I have posted in the other forums alerting this. I will admit that I am a member of this forum dating back to 2008 and I am on my second username here because I had developed an antagonistic following here (although I wasn’t a prolific poster here) that took things I said twisted them and made them out to be something they weren’t.

As a longtime admin and moderator you see the way people interact and how they take what someone says and don’t allow for a discussion allowing the other person to come to an agreeement or conclusion that they might evolve what they were trying to say. It is all point scoring and zero sums. If the point of a discussion forum is to discuss then taking something someone said and labeling them as horrible, stupid, or other insults is pointless and not in the interest of discussion but something different.

There are people that do this unkowingly I believe and then there are people that are here to do exactly that. I don’t comment much here because I am still run off by things that have happened in the past here and because I don’t like being baited into a banning and know better than to engage in a discussion that fails from the get go.

People can be wrong in their thinking or their postings but that doesn’t mean they need to be hit over the head with a sledge hammer. Their is no discussion in that and no evolving ones thoughts with that sort of reaction.

[demmiblue]

119. Can you imagine any of these people being on a jury?

One of the more disappointing points: a lot of women are making the grossest comments (or agreeing with them).

[EffieBlack]

120. I certainly wouldn't want some of the people I've seen here on a jury if I was accused of anything

And I definitely wouldn't want any of the "believe all women" folk on the jury if my son were charged with sexual assault and the only evidence was the uncorroborated word of the accuser.

[demmiblue]

118. And it is still on-going today.

What an eye-opener, that's for sure.

[LexVegas]

123. Yep. Unreal. nt