Go on... rape her... she won't report it... [UniLad magazine article]

[revol68]

mixing up a question in such a manner is pretty disgusting and really does the report no favours.

 

[articul8]

I guess it assumes that "rape" is just one subset of "violence against women" - but it obscures as much as it reveals, yes

 

[revol68]

it's pretty fucked up and if adults that are meant to know about this kind of shit are so intellectually confused is it any wonder if kids are.

obviously there are circumstances where it is fine and necessary to hit a women in self defense etc

 

[Meltingpot]

Maybe specially trained prosecutors for rape cases would help. I read an article in the Guardian a while back in which they described one in the US who gets a much higher conviction rate (around 80%) than prosecutors in rape cases do over here - because she's skilled at getting to the truth and behind all the excuses, evasions, rationalisations etc. that rapists will use after the event. I wish I had a link to the article.

I think this is the person I was talking about;

http://www.alicevachss.com/index.html

and here's an article about her in the Guardian;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jun/01/ukcrime.law

I've heard her husband Andrew speak on the radio (on Johnnie Walker's show on GLR if I remember rightly); he specialises in prosecuting crimes against children, especially abuse cases.

 

[trashpony]

Thanks for that MP - really interesting

 

[purenarcotic]

Well here's an interesting one; Gina Ford has come out and said that women should have sex with their partner 4 to 6 weeks after giving birth and if they don't want to, they should just grin and bear it and do it anyway.

So what she seems to be saying is your man can force you to have sex if we wants to, because apparently it helps to keep the relationship on track. What a cunt of a woman.

 

[Nylock]

wtf?!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well here's an interesting one; Gina Ford has come out and said that women should have sex with their partner 4 to 6 weeks after giving birth and if they don't want to, they should just grin and bear it and do it anyway.

So what she seems to be saying is your man can force you to have sex if we wants to, because apparently it helps to keep the relationship on track. What a cunt of a woman.

There are always people who are overtly complicit with their oppression. Without knowing the individual it's impossible to know what lies behind her attitude. Obviously, if she believes in the whole "surrendered woman" thing, then she needs therapy, but why do people hold and/or voice these beliefs that aid in their own oppression? That's what interests me - why hobble yourself?

 

[purenarcotic]

There are always people who are overtly complicit with their oppression. Without knowing the individual it's impossible to know what lies behind her attitude. Obviously, if she believes in the whole "surrendered woman" thing, then she needs therapy, but why do people hold and/or voice these beliefs that aid in their own oppression? That's what interests me - why hobble yourself?

All I really know about her tbh is that she's written a couple of books about raising kids (interestingly she has never had any of her own, but has looked after loads) which have been very popular.

I have always wondered why too, it seems such a bizarre thing to do. I wonder whether some it comes down to beliefs in what gender is; innate vs social constructionism iyswim?

 

[DotCommunist]

house rather than field iyswim?

 

[Blagsta]

Well here's an interesting one; Gina Ford has come out and said that women should have sex with their partner 4 to 6 weeks after giving birth and if they don't want to, they should just grin and bear it and do it anyway.

So what she seems to be saying is your man can force you to have sex if we wants to, because apparently it helps to keep the relationship on track. What a cunt of a woman.

Her views on childcare are wack too.

 

[purenarcotic]

Her views on childcare are wack too.

You can't view anything on her fucking website without signing up but I've had a dig around of articles and clips and I agree, they do seem pretty awful. The criticism it's like training animals is pretty spot on I'd say.

 

[nino_savatte]

Well here's an interesting one; Gina Ford has come out and said that women should have sex with their partner 4 to 6 weeks after giving birth and if they don't want to, they should just grin and bear it and do it anyway.

So what she seems to be saying is your man can force you to have sex if we wants to, because apparently it helps to keep the relationship on track. What a cunt of a woman.

 

[ymu]

There are big questions for the justice professionals in the saga of "Sarah", whose conviction for perverting the course of justice by wrongly retracting a rape allegation was upheld on Tuesday by Lord Judge, the lord chief justice.

It would have been hard for the court of appeal to reverse a guilty plea, tendered at trial, by a woman of full age, legally represented and who, on Lord Judge's view, committed this crime. It might be said if you wanted to avoid that conviction you shouldn't be starting at the court of appeal.

It is a catastrophic case for the already sexually and physically abused victim, who has now been imprisoned, separated from her children and, unless there is an appeal to the supreme court, will be a criminal for the rest of her life. It is equally catastrophic for the public, since a man the authorities were satisfied had raped Sarah and who broke bail and perverted justice is not only free but has never been prosecuted.

The questions are simple.

First, why did any judge grant bail to a man charged with six counts of raping his wife?

...

The second question is why didn't the police arrest and charge Ray when he broke bail and perverted justice, by contacting Sarah to withdraw her complaint?

...

Police believed the retraction to be untrue and, having failed, for a second time, to tackle Ray's pressure on Sarah, arrested her for succumbing to it. Ludicrously, they charged her with lying in saying that her rapes weren't true, ready to prove against Sarah that Ray had raped her instead of proving it against him.

A further question is as to her plea of guilty. Lord Judge said today that there was no evidence that Sarah feared violence when she retracted and so the defence of duress – when somebody's free will is overcome so they act out of fear – "was not realistically available". Her original defence team may take comfort from that, but what jury would have convicted her in a trial, in all the awful circumstances set out above?

Now anyone who is raped by a partner, already a hugely difficult offence about which to complain, will expect the justice system to let him pressure a withdrawal and punish her if she gives way. Many women may think it safer to stay silent. That is not what we want women to do. It is long overdue for police, prosecutors and judges to learn about domestic violence and to give women the protection they deserve.

Full text

Another massive step backwards. I'm sure the media commentariat will manage to drag it all back to being a difficult crime to prosecute and/or the absolute necessity of charging those evil women who do make false accusations. And why can't women just make up their minds and stop saying no when they really mean yes, and all those other delightful diversionary tactics beloved of rapists everywhere.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There are always people who are overtly complicit with their oppression. Without knowing the individual it's impossible to know what lies behind her attitude. Obviously, if she believes in the whole "surrendered woman" thing, then she needs therapy, but why do people hold and/or voice these beliefs that aid in their own oppression? That's what interests me - why hobble yourself?

It is wrong of her to say that, but plenty of people, women and men, consent to sex when they don't want it out of a variety of motives aimed at keeping their relationship on track. That doesn't necessarily imply oppression.

 

[trashpony]

It is wrong of her to say that, but plenty of people, women and men, consent to sex when they don't want it out of a variety of motives aimed at keeping their relationship on track. That doesn't necessarily imply oppression.

But she didn't consent

 

[quimcunx]

Who didn't?

 

[ymu]

But she didn't consent

An unfortunate Canucking occurred when the thread got bumped. Track back the post he is responding to, and it's about Gina Ford saying that new mums who don't want sex should just grin and bear it. The oppressed colluding in their own oppression, cf any female Daily Mail columnist.

 

[trashpony]

An unfortunate Canucking occurred when the thread got bumped. Track back the post he is responding to, and it's about Gina Ford saying that new mums who don't want sex should just grin and bear it. The oppressed colluding in their own oppression, cf any female Daily Mail columnist.

@ Canucking

Ah right - my mistake, apols lbj

 

[littlebabyjesus]

@ Canucking

Ah right - my mistake, apols lbj

That's alright. Sorry for confusing you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It is wrong of her to say that, but plenty of people, women and men, consent to sex when they don't want it out of a variety of motives aimed at keeping their relationship on track. That doesn't necessarily imply oppression.

It doesn't? That people might do something they really don't want to in order to "keep their relationship on track" doesn't imply oppression, even if of the social type rather than the physical?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It doesn't? That people might do something they really don't want to in order to "keep their relationship on track" doesn't imply oppression, even if of the social type rather than the physical?

I don't think so, no. Relationships can be complex beasts. We do things to keep our partners happy sometimes - because we calculate that doing it is better than not doing it. That may be because we're being put under pressure that could be considered oppression. Or it could simply be part of what we do when we care for someone. Or a mixture of the two.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't think so, no. Relationships can be complex beasts. We do things to keep our partners happy sometimes - because we calculate that doing it is better than not doing it. That may be because we're being put under pressure that could be considered oppression. Or it could simply be part of what we do when we care for someone. Or a mixture of the two.

Self-oppression is still oppression, especially if you're doing it to conform to some norm of behaviour that says you must do a or b.

 

[ymu]

Kind of an unfortunate bump to unearth that ancient post on, lbj. Did it occur to you to read it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Self-oppression is still oppression, especially if you're doing it to conform to some norm of behaviour that says you must do a or b.

If you're doing it to conform to some norm that says you should, yes, which is why I said that the woman in that quote was wrong.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Kind of an unfortunate bump to unearth that ancient post on, lbj. Did it occur to you to read it?

Sorry? I was responding to a post originating in March 6.

 

[ymu]

And the newly added context to your claims that social oppression is not the same as physical oppression is ... ?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And the newly added context to your claims that social oppression is not the same as physical oppression is ... ?

I might have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here. In which case, apologies to the thread. But you've certainly misunderstood me too.

 

[ymu]

Yeah. You're always misunderstood, never insensitive.

 

[quimcunx]

Wut?