In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Open Thread with Basset on a Beach

tigtog

This pensive Basset Hound is your host for this week’s Open Thread. Please natter/chatter/vent/rant on anything* you like over this weekend and throughout the week.

BassetHound
By Galanza (Own work) [GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0], via Wikimedia Commons

So, what have you been up to? What would you rather be up to? What’s been awesome/awful?
Reading? Watching? Making? Meeting?
What has [insert awesome inspiration/fave fansquee/guilty pleasure/dastardly ne’er-do-well/threat to all civilised life on the planet du jour] been up to?

* Netiquette footnotes:
* There is no off-topic on the Weekly Open Thread, but consider whether your comment would be on-topic on any recent thread and thus better belongs there.
* If your comment touches on topics known to generally result in thread-jacking, you will be expected to take the discussion to #spillover instead of overshadowing the social/circuit-breaking aspects of this thread.

42 thoughts on Open Thread with Basset on a Beach

  1. TW: sexual abuse

    (and some TMI-detail intimacy stuff)

    These days I’m processing a lot of trauma caused by things that some men have done to me as a child (I can’t be more specific here because I’m afraid of typing it out). I keep having invasive thoughts about me being abused that way and in worse ways. Growing up, I was always afraid of it happening to me, but now my fear is becoming overwhelming.

    That trauma is the main reason I can’t envision myself ever being in a sexual relationship. Even if I’m with someone I really like and trust, I’ll be too scared of my physical boundaries being ignored or violated. I think if I ever get into a relationship, I’ll be ok with only physical things like cuddling or being held. I wouldn’t mind that kind of relationship, but I wish I could feel comfortable with a sexual one.

    Then again, I could just be speaking nonsense, since I’ve never been in any kind of non-platonic relationship. I go as far as thinking about how I’d be uncomfortable with one form of intimacy but comfortable with another, as if I actually have experience. And honestly, at this rate, I don’t think I’ll ever even be in a relationship anyway, so maybe there’s not even a good reason to think/talk about it.

    1. Aaliyah, I can imagine how hard it must be to imagine trustful and pleasurable sexual intimacy given your personal history. It’s entirely rational for you to feel apprehensive/anxious about the possibility.

      But you’re in the very beginning phases of transitioning and escaping from your abusive family situation. You have so much change and growth to go through over the next few years that who can say how you will feel once you’ve found yourself a stable situation and self-image and feel more physically and emotionally safe on a simple day-to-day basis?

      None of us are guaranteed happy relationships, sadly. But that doesn’t mean that you don’t have a chance at it. It’s probably just true that right now, and for the next year at least (and possibly a while longer), with everything else going on in your life, is an unlikely time for a happy trustful sexual relationship to develop.

      1. TW: eating disorders

        Yeah, that makes sense. I think the reason is that I’m being a lot harsher on myself than usual these days. It’s strange because I am deliberately trying to take care of myself (mentally and otherwise), yet I keep finding myself pulled apart by family pressure regarding searching for jobs and getting back into school. (I can’t do either because of disabilities, both physical and mental.)

        I know that if I try to force myself into work and school now, I’ll just crash and burn (especially since the mental energy I usually have has recently been drained with the return of an eating disorder). But going against my family’s demands only makes me feel guilty to the point of distraction, and also really worried because I’m in a financially tight situation and still without any income. Following that is the kind of belief that I’ll fail at everything else I want to do, including starting a relationship of any kind (even if it’s platonic). And this is all before all of the trauma stuff that’s been going on in my head. So I guess that kind of thing about relationships should be put aside – I already have more than enough to deal with.

        IDK, maybe I’m not doing the right self-care stuff. Certainly transitioning and trying to eat more constituted a good start, but there are way too many things to keep track of. It’s hard to take care of my trauma stuff, too, since I don’t really have an easy way of talking to helpful people about these things. I mean, I do have really nice and supportive friends, but they suffer from their own trauma and whatnot, so I can’t – and shouldn’t – expect them to always be able and/or willing to talk. They have their needs, too, and I’m not entitled to their emotional labor at all. Especially when some of them are more marginalized than I am.

        Anyway, no pressure for advice or anything, I’m just speaking whatever’s on my mind about this stuff.

        1. I say this in every comment thread about how to find a partner: focus on finding contentment in your existing (and aim for expanding) friendship circles and your own interests/hobbies. Spending time with likeminded companions, sharing interests with those companions, is the only way I know to build a life that doesn’t rely on the idea of a romantic partner to complete oneself. If you end up finding love through those friendship circles, that’s a wonderful bonus, but in the meantime at least you have built a life rich with friends.

    2. TW: abuse, transmisogyny, disablism/ableism

      Oh yeah, there’s also, like, my frequent worries about what could happen to me if I saw my dad again, with my body having obvious signs of hormonal transition. (For context, he has the ability to easily discern physical changes in people, never hesitating to tell me how “pale” and “depressed” I look.) I’m scared of the possibility of him using “corrective” abuse (probably sexual and physical) against me, as he has done before.

      And to think my dad wants me to come up to San Jose soon to visit my little sisters for their birthdays…then again, I really do want to see those two. I have some meager birthday presents and I want to check in with them to see how they’re doing. I miss them so much. Every time I see them I can tell they are trying to hide their trauma due to, you know, my dad and my step-mom’s abusive parenting.

      Sorry for all of the venting, folks. There’s been way too much going on in my life. I want a break already. X_X

    1. That, and weekends have just become a different type of work. We’re exhausted physically and wound up mentally.

  3. I have been mainly re-watching Six Feet Under, which has been great, although I literally cry during each episode. For some reason, being in my thirties I seem to be much more teary than I used to be.

    Also, about to return to Switzerland where I work; I’ve been able to be with my partner over the summer (and get work done here in the UK), so that’s been fantastic, and thus not looking forward to evenings of aloneness. I think I might have to book a flight soon so I know there will be a return!

    1. Caught a creeper trying that once. Yes I did kick him in the face, yes it did break his creeper nose and everyone in Albertsons turned to give him dirty looks as he screamed and ran out, with me hot on his heels letting them know what he did. No, I don’t plan to react any other way. Assholes.

    2. That goes right along with the destruction of the abortion clinic buffer zone. Basically, any and every right that can be invoked by anybody else trumps women’s right to exist in public without fear and harassment.

    3. That is completely wrong.

      To give a quick explanation:

      The legislature COULD have written a law which was sufficiently limited that it would pass First Amendment muster. This is tricky to do but it is certainly possible.

      The legislature DID NOT write such a law. Instead, the fools wrote a broad and sweeping law which addressed all sorts of conduct. To be precise, the law said, in part,

      (b) A person commits an offense if the person:

      (1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:

      (A) without the other person’s consent; and

      (B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

      Do you see “upskirt” or “women” or ANYTHING LIMITING AT ALL there?

      No, you don’t. Because the legislatures are idiots.

      The law literally says that taking, or emailing, or blogging about, a picture of Brad and Angelina fully dressed, walking down the sidewalk, is illegal–criminal–if the picture is (a) nonconsensual, and (b) turns you on. Whoever you are. Whichever one of them does it for you.

      That candid picture of Ryan Gosling with a feminist quote pasted on it? That’s criminal under this statute, if you think it’s hot. (Unless he consented to your emailing it around.)

      Anyway.

      Not only did the court NOT rule “against women,” but the court took the highly unusual step of specifically explaining how the legislative idiots could fix the statute and make it Constitutional. They didn’t just say “nope, try again,” they said “nope, that is way too overbroad, but here are a lot of successful ways that you could limit the statute in a way that it could pass muster.” Which is, if anything, a very strong level of support.

      I have no idea why everyone is reporting this so badly.

      1. Now that I’ve seen this comment in the mod queue and set it free, I see your point even more clearly. Yes, that law was drafted extremely poorly. Wow.

        Not only did the court NOT rule “against women,” but the court took the highly unusual step of specifically explaining how the legislative idiots could fix the statute and make it Constitutional. They didn’t just say “nope, try again,” they said “nope, that is way too overbroad, but here are a lot of successful ways that you could limit the statute in a way that it could pass muster.” Which is, if anything, a very strong level of support.

        Yep. Legislators expecting the judiciary to rely on the intent of their legislation rather than the words on the page is an incredibly dangerous idea (“bbbbbuttt it’s obvious we didn’t mean it that way” – “tough”). Just ask the ghosts of the members of the Constitutional Committee how well their extremely comprehensive provisions for an evolving US Constitution via regular amendments as new social circumstances arise has worked out.

  5. In fact, the court explicitly suggested that a law banning upskirt photography could pass muster:

    We agree with the State that substantial privacy interests are invaded in an intolerable manner when a person is photographed without consent in a private place, such as the home, or with respect to an area of the person that is not exposed to the general public, such as up a skirt.

    Why are so many places, and feminist blogs, reporting such drivel? This shit is important.

    1. ooh… by “stupid reporting” i was talking about places like Salon (who should know better) and not necessarily people like TigTog (who might reasonably believe it to be true since a gazillion places were misreporting it.)

      1. No worries, I got that. Thanks for the extra perspective – I do understand that a pointed decision noting that the law as currently exists does not offer protection against [abominable behaviour] is part of how judges nudge legislatures to enact laws that do offer the necessary protections. I guess that means it’s time for a writing campaign to Texas legislators.

        1. I guess personally the frustrating thing is that public campaigns to “stop the ____” are so often bad. This seems to be because people are inflamed and therefore relatively uninterested in someone pointing out the downsides to it. Lots of laws (this one, revenge porn, etc.) have lots of potentially-bad effects.

          Best thing I can say is NEVER TRUST REPORTING. I venture to guess that most people who supported this–like most laws–only read the summaries. The devil is in the details.

  6. The CyberCreep wing of /b/ at 4chan has erupted in a bile-flinging spree following Emma Watson’s pro-feminist speech at the UN (transcript at UN Women).

    via thinkprogress

    Meanwhile, Business Insider is reporting that a 4chan user “has created an ominous countdown site that hints at the release of leaked naked photographs of actress Emma Watson in just over four days.” The site, called “Emma You Are Next,” shows a countdown ticker and the message, “Never forget, the biggest to come thus far.” Though this comes on the heels of round two of a celebrity photo hacking, the Business Insider report is quick to add that this site is likely just a “prank.” You know, just one of those super-funny pranks where garbage people try to intimidate and silence women by threatening to invade their privacy and, as Anne Hathaway put it to a leering, totally out-of-line Matt Lauer, “commodify the sexuality of unwilling participants.”

    The cybercreeps are scum.

    1. I’m not disagreeing that cybercreeps are scum, but 4chan appears to have been absolved of this particular crime.

      Emma Watson Nude Photo Threat Was a Prank Aimed at 4Chan

      The nude photo leak threat targeting Emma Watson earlier this week turned out to be a viral marketing stunt by a site calling itself Rantic Marketing. Rantic claims to want to shut down the website 4chan, but the “social media marketing enterprise” may itself just be a hoax.

      1. Yes, I saw that just before I went to bed last night and was wondering about what’s really going on. It still strikes me as cybercreeps engaged in intimidatory silencing tactics against Watson, but maybe it wasn’t precisely the particular cell of cybercreeps that it first appeared to be. The idea of anybody thinking realistically that they could shut down 4chan though? They’d just regroup. That strikes me as yet another layer of pranky skullduggery going on. No doubt someone’s hugging themselves super tight with the thought of how clever they are with all these wheels within wheels, but what’s the point?

        2. It still strikes me as cybercreeps engaged in intimidatory silencing tactics against Watson, but maybe it wasn’t precisely the particular cell of cybercreeps that it first appeared to be.

          I don’t pretend to have any real understanding of what goes on at 4chan, but from what little I do know, I suspect that if Rantic is being run by a group of 4chaners, then they probably didn’t do this with the intention of trying to silence Watson, but rather trying to get other 4chaners in trouble somehow.

          But who knows? That’s the problem with anarcho-syndicalist organizations. Anyone can claim to represent them, and you never have any real idea of who is pressing what.

  7. Two female librarians are being sued by a male librarian who has filed a defamation suit in an attempt to shut them up.

    The defendents, nina de jesus and Lisa Rabey, have launched a website, http://teamharpy.wordpress.com/, where they outline the case and request witness statements from anybody who was harassed by the guy. They also need contributions to their legal defense fund.

    Discussion and signal-boosting is also taking place on the hashtag #teamharpy.

    1. I read the link and am interested to see what happens here. I don’t think that this suit is a bad thing at all. Do you think it’s a problem?

      I see defamation suits as a good way to dig into facts.

      Truth is an absolute defense against most defamation claims. Since the underlying accusations relate to harassers, then the women will have a day in court–with all the witnesses they want to call (including anyone who was harassed, or who witnessed someone else being harassed.) They will have an opportunity to present their case. And if a jury thinks it is “more likely than not” that what they said was true, they’ll win.

      1. It’s admirable that the women have decided to stand their ground and crowdsource their funding for the legal costs they are incurring by contesting the suit.

        It’s despicable of Joe Murphy to use the law to attempt to silence them (and as collateral damage intimidate others from discussing other harassers in the librarian community) just because he knows (and he knows them well enough to know this) that they don’t personally have the funds to contest the suit.

        I hope that the level of moral and financial support they are receiving makes him very very nervous right now.

        An Open Letter to Joe Murphy (@libraryfuture)

        1. It seems pretty clear that you can’t categorize the suit as “unfounded” or “bullying” or “silencing” or “intimidation” unless he is FACTUALLY WRONG. IOW, if they were actually lying about him, then they would deserve to get sued.

          Do you agree? I assume you do.

          So with that in mind:

          How can you tell that he is using the law to silence them inappropriately, rather than using the law to punish them appropriately?

          Is there some evidence online which isn’t on the website? If not, how can this be so obvious that people think he should not only lose the case (presumably you wouldn’t think this was bad if the facts supported his side?), but should be deterred from even bringing the matter before an objective party?

        2. Yes, why would feminists weigh the odds and examine experience and give the benefit of the doubt to women reporting sexual harassment, rather than giving equal time to the totally plausible theory that women make these things up for funsies? Or revenge? I mean, women, right?

          [I’m pretty sure I know why a previous version of this comment went into moderation and I’ve changed it so I think it won’t this time. If it appears, no need to release the first version.]

        3. I weigh the odds as well, which is why I personally suspect that the guy is an asshole.
          Most of the time, these accusations are accurate.

          It’s another thing entirely to think that he is so clearly in the wrong that he shouldn’t even defend himself. That he should “publicly apologize”, as tigtog’s link demands. That he shouldn’t even try to get to the specific truth of the matter.

          IOW, the problem isn’t the opposition to him. If you said “he’s probably a [gendered slur redacted]” I’d agree.

          It’s the opposition to the LAWSUIT. And the degree of that opposition is [ableist slur redacted], based on the limited information we have. Do folks seriously think that someone who is accused should stop defending himself and apologize and “reform” himself without even having the opportunity to raise a defense? Can you seriously reach that conclusion based on the evidence we have?

          That seems [ableist slur redacted] based on the process that folks rightfully demand everywhere else. Some folks want more process for an employer to fire an at-will employee than they would grant to this dude. I say he should have his rope: if he hangs himself then that’s that.

          1. IOW, the problem isn’t the opposition to him. If you said “he’s probably a [gendered slur redacted]” I’d agree.

            It’s the opposition to the LAWSUIT. And the degree of that opposition is [ableist slur redacted], based on the limited information we have. Do folks seriously think that someone who is accused should stop defending himself and apologize and “reform” himself without even having the opportunity to raise a defense? Can you seriously reach that conclusion based on the evidence we have?

            If I were an officer of the court, then I too would be standing on principle and defending Murphy’s right to defend himself. As a member of the public, I’m not trying to take that right away from him, either. However, as an interested observer this particular case is hitting all my pattern recognition buttons of the “walks like a SLAPP suit, quacks like a SLAPP suit” variety, and thus I have a personal opinion based on that pattern recognition.

            With my critical thinking hat on, I can acknowledge that the human mind has a tendency to jump to pattern recognition based on incomplete datasets at times, and is subject to filling in gaps in patterns based on pre-existing cognitive biases operating at subconscious levels. If it turns out to be that in this case my SLAPP-quack pattern recognition algorithm has been faulty, then I am willing to acknowledge my error.

            In the meantime though, since I am not an officer of the court and am merely expressing an opinion that has no weight in whether the court case will in fact go forward or not, then I’m going to continue to hold and express that opinion.

          2. A tangential tale for illustrative purposes: a particularly colourful Australian Prime Minister a few decades ago was notoriously litigious, and far to clever to ever fall into the “vexatiously” camp. He sued journalists and publishers regularly and successfully for various published/broadcast claims that they were unable to support in court*. He famously would take visitors for tours of his house and gleefully named the journalist/publisher who “paid for that” as he pointed to various home improvements and works of art.

            I fully accept that he had a right to pursue those lawsuits. I can still believe that many of them were blatantly vindictive and above and beyond what was necessary to defend his reputation, and I can still believe that he’s a self-righteous arsehole.

            [ETA: * I’ve just remembered that one of the reasons that particular PM was so successful with his defamation lawsuits was that the law at the time did not acknowledge truth of any claims as a total defence. Thus he was able to secure large settlements based purely on the damage deemed to have been done to his reputation. Defamation law in Australia has since been changed to allow truth as a total defence, legislated by a government of a different party persuasion, arguably largely due to the millions accrued by that particular PM via those defamation suits.]

        4. Do folks seriously think that someone who is accused should stop defending himself and apologize and “reform” himself without even having the opportunity to raise a defense?

          If he’s a harassing asshole, which you acknowledge he most likely is, then yes, he should stop defending himself and apologize and stop harassing women.

          Given that nobody here is saying he shouldn’t have the right to sue, only that he’s a harassing asshole who is using that right in order to continue and escalate his harassment, and thus I hope he dies in a ditch, I really don’t understand this grandstanding as though you are the last bastion of rational care standing between us and total mob rule anarchy.

        5. Further, you have a touching faith that the legal system is a reliable way of verifying sexual harassment. Touching, but unconvincing.

        6. EG
          September 29, 2014 at 7:21 pm | Permalink
          Further, you have a touching faith that the legal system is a reliable way of verifying sexual harassment. Touching, but unconvincing.

          I’m not a canadian lawyer. But for the purposes of defamation reporting (at least in the US) it’s a lot simpler and is not at all the same as bringing a harassment claim.

          TIGTOG SAID:
          I’ve just remembered that one of the reasons that particular PM was so successful with his defamation lawsuits was that the law at the time did not acknowledge truth of any claims as a total defence.

          If that is what the law says, then my analysis would differ. I’ve been operating off the assumption that the locality stuck to the normal “you can’t libel someone by telling the truth about them” theory, not the strange alternative–though now that you mention it, Canada is WAY less free speech oriented than we are so I may be wrong.

          1. If that is what the law says, then my analysis would differ. I’ve been operating off the assumption that the locality stuck to the normal “you can’t libel someone by telling the truth about them” theory, not the strange alternative–though now that you mention it, Canada is WAY less free speech oriented than we are so I may be wrong.

            If anything (to this non-lawyer — but then, Canadian law doesn’t seem to be your area of practice), it appears that Canadian defamation law can be even more weighted in favor of a plaintiff than in the UK. Given that one defendant is a U.S. citizen and the other is Canadian, I for one can all too easily suspect that a case that would have no traction in a U.S. court would be more successful in Canada.

    2. I see defamation suits as a good way to dig into facts.

      What makes it good? The expense? The potential for victims of harassment to have their trauma become part of the public record? The risk to career prospects, particularly for the defendants? This isn’t a dispute between two large organizations that have money to spend on years of litigation.

      Defamation lawsuits, and days in court, are not the only way to expose and discuss the truth — even if one assumes that both sides have an equal interest in truth as such. At the most it might be preferable to the problem of sexual harassment among librarians staying normalized, but there are certainly ways less painful and less expensive to victims of sexual harassment for them to be heard.

      One of the defendants, nina de jesus, wrote a piece the other day where she discusses transformative justice and community accountable as an alternative to the legal system:

      It also isn’t about simply ‘punishing’ the offending person and, idk, forever casting them out and making them a pariah. Most recently these principles have been discussed/applied within communities of colour as a way to deal with these situations without calling the police or sending people to prison. I don’t care about punishment. I care about harassment stopping and the silence around it ending.

      By the way, as of today, the petition asking Murphy to drop the lawsuit is also on change.org.

      1. Galen Charlton
        What makes it good?

        Like I said: the fact that it tends to expose the truth.

        People are people; some people are liars. I think it’s a great thing that we have a process by which people who think they were wronged and lied about can publicly challenge it. Otherwise it makes it easy to lie about people, and promotes a sort of mob mentality.

        Yes, the process can be abused, at least to some degree. Any process can have an occasional bad result. But unless you think we should have no redress at all (do you?) then you sort of have to live with it.

        More to the point, I have no idea if this IS being abused or not since we don’t actually know the facts yet. As it stands, what we know is 100% consistent with both sides’ stories. (I know, I know, on this board I’m probably supposed to assume that they’re 100% telling the truth and that he’s lying. In my experience both sides are usually lying, at least a bit, and their “front page” story isn’t a good indicator.)

        The expense?

        No. That’s a downside. Again, there’s no perfect process here.

        Be aware that in Canada, the loser pays. that means that if he has brought this suit fraudulently–if he IS in fact a sexual predator or serial harasser, etc.–then he will have to pay both his own fees AND some or all of the fees borne by the defendants.

        This, if anything, serves to make their defense of “he’s lying” a bit less credible. Because if they produce a witness he will have a very expensive result.

        The potential for victims of harassment to have their trauma become part of the public record?

        Again: what is the goal here?

        You can protect victims and give them privacy.
        You can identify harassers and give them punishments, whether social, criminal or otherwise.
        But you can’t do both at the same time unless you want to have some sort of star chamber “only we know the truth and we will not allow our truth to be questioned” kind of thing, which is scarier than the alternatives.

        The risk to career prospects, particularly for the defendants?

        Sure: career risk is always an issue. But that goes both ways. Since their statements will hurt HIS career, then how can you take a career-focused stance unless you grant him the right to defend himself against an attack?

        I keep saying this, but we don’t know precisely what is true. The web page lacks any specific facts, and the allegations haven’t been vetted yet, ad there are no deposition transcripts or court rulings.

        This isn’t a dispute between two large organizations that have money to spend on years of litigation.

        So what? You don’t need to make it expensive. If they produce witnesses which show it to be true, they can win on summary judgment. If they produce basic facts they can win on summary judgment as well.

        Perhaps you believe that we shouldn’t have defamation claims at ALL. Is that what you think? If not, how can you have a defamation process unless you’re OK with a defamation claim?

        Defamation lawsuits, and days in court, are not the only way to expose and discuss the truth…

        No. But they’re a good one. Because you at least get to hear sworn statements. And you get people to answer the questions that YOU want answered, rather than letting them just make their spin.

        The defendants will promptly be deposed–long before they go to court. The plaintiff can then ask the defendants why precisely they wrote what they did. Then he can get a specific answer of the kind which is lacking (so far) on their web page. Perhaps they witnessed an attempted rape; if so, he’s going to lose. Perhaps they heard that a friend of a friend of a friend thought that he was “skeevy,” and they went and wrote that he was a “sexual predator;” if so, he’s going to win. As he should.

        At the most it might be preferable to the problem of sexual harassment among librarians staying normalized, but there are certainly ways less painful and less expensive to victims of sexual harassment for them to be heard.

        Have you read any Kafka? Because there’s something similar here, going on.

        If he WAS a harasser, then:
        a) the accusations are true;
        b) the suit is fraudulent;
        c) he is trying to use the suit to silence victims.

        If he WAS NOT a harasser, then
        a) the accusations were false;
        b) the suit is well-placed; and
        c) the people crying about the suit are trying to silence HIM.

        You are putting “disputes the claim” as proof that the claim was true.

        One of the defendants, nina de jesus, wrote a piece the other day where she discusses transformative justice and community accountable as an alternative to the legal system:

        It also isn’t about simply ‘punishing’ the offending person and, idk, forever casting them out and making them a pariah. Most recently these principles have been discussed/applied within communities of colour as a way to deal with these situations without calling the police or sending people to prison. I don’t care about punishment. I care about harassment stopping and the silence around it ending.

        I don’t trust her. I don’t trust ANYONE, really. She is taking a position in which people make statements which can’t be challenged, and in which the truth is easily hidden behind protestations. She would like us just to trust her. I don’t.

        I mean, this should go without saying, but not everyone tells the truth 100% of the time. That is a human trait. Feminists, MRAs, men, women, accusers, and defendants, are all people. When you argue for a limitation in an attempt to “protect victims from their harasser” what you are also doing is removing any ability to dispute the claim that they ARE victims, or that he IS a harasser. Doesn’t that seem a bit extreme?

        By the way, as of today, the petition asking Murphy to drop the lawsuit is also on change.org.

        There sure are a lot of people who don’t think much about this. It’s as if they are unable to see themselves on the other side of the chair.

        I have had women clients who have been unjustly accused of abusing their kids or husbands, in the context of a divorce. Should they be prevented from dealing with it? Should the “victim be believed” in that case, too? Should I tell you about all the calls I get from people (of both sexes) asking me “what do I have to say to get my ex out of my house; should I just say I was abused?”

        This “community” stuff is just a BS way for people to pretend that in THEIR community (which is only made up of true scotsmen) there is nobody who would do anything wrong.

        Let’s imagine that your arch enemy posts about you. In that hypothetical post, he says that you’re a racist transphobic anti-semite who likes to beat up trans women, blacks, and Jews (I am not actually saying this! It’s just an example.)

        What do you do? Do you engage with the accusations? Do you try to “disprove” that you’re a racist transphobic antisemite? Do you pretend that the accusation has value, and concede that you’re “healing” even if you think it’s BS? Do you personally sit there and take the lumps, because we all know that racism, transphobia, and antisemitism are important, so the fact that you stand to lose your job and friends is just acceptable collateral damage because we all know that other people do those things?

        Can you even imagine what it is like to be accused of something that you think is false? And then to have people attack you for trying to defend yourself against it? I sort of wonder if you can.

  8. One of the guys involved in the Rehtaeh Parsons case has plead guilty to producing child pornography

    Link

    This column by her father was the only news coverage I could find.

    1. Exactly right, Angel. Also sickening is that John Crawford wasn’t even really armed. He picked up a toy BB gun off the shelf of that Walmart. He even dropped it when the police showed up. They didn’t give him the benefit of the doubt. The white guy was actually packing a gun, in front of a school.

      Another reason why open carry people are full of crap is the whole notion of them being armed in order to protect the others around them.

      The last thing that needs to happen when there is a shooting somewhere, is for someone else to pull a gun, and escalate things.

      That is why Antoinette Tuff is so awesome:

      Antoinette Tuff story

Comments are currently closed.