Do we understand yet why it's hard for assault victims to go public?

C

Cancel 2020.1

Canceled
Complete vilification on social media. Vicious attacks on their character. A billionaire promising to sue them - after he becomes the most powerful person in the country.

I mean, what do you need, exactly? This is obvious stuff.
 
Look what happen to the women that accused Bill Clinton and the abuse they took and that was before social media
 
cawacko said:
Look what happen to the women that accused Bill Clinton and the abuse they took and that was before social media
Click to expand...

Yup.

Makes it even more mystifying that it's the righties who hate Clinton who are doing the vilifying now, and making it sound like it's easy for women to come out about this stuff and "why did they wait?"
 
Look at Zappa's comments about the women who accused Clinton. He's supposedly a pro feminist liberal male but he's gone into straight attack mode against them
 
Thing1 said:
Complete vilification on social media. Vicious attacks on their character. A billionaire promising to sue them - after he becomes the most powerful person in the country.

I mean, what do you need, exactly? This is obvious stuff.
Click to expand...

They are pre-grogrammed not to believe women, it seems. Anybody who hasn't been sexually harassed or assaulted has no room to criticize.
 
cawacko said:
Look at Zappa's comments about the women who accused Clinton. He's supposedly a pro feminist liberal male but he's gone into straight attack mode against them
Click to expand...

I'm not speaking for Zap but it's hard not to throw Trump's women in the faces of his supporters. It's the irony of saying we should believe Clinton's victims but not Trump's.
 
it all depends on your evidence. If you have your testimony plus i believe it was 6 or 10? corroborating witnesses as the media claimed then I would be highly skeptical of you because you would have filed suit already if your case was that strong and walked away with a multimillion dollar settlement at least.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm not speaking for Zap but it's hard not to throw Trump's women in the faces of his supporters. It's the irony of saying we should believe Clinton's victims but not Trump's.
Click to expand...

Ok. But that makes it just another partisan political fight with women who have been harassed as pawns. If one truly supports women and their claims partisan politics shouldn't matter
 
Thing1 said:
Complete vilification on social media. Vicious attacks on their character. A billionaire promising to sue them - after he becomes the most powerful person in the country.

I mean, what do you need, exactly? This is obvious stuff.
Click to expand...

You left out a President's wife demeaning them, a women's talk show referring to them as sluts, liberal voters accepting that it was a Right wing conspiracy theory, etc. :palm:
 
tsuke said:
it all depends on your evidence. If you have your testimony plus i believe it was 6 or 10? corroborating witnesses as the media claimed then I would be highly skeptical of you because you would have filed suit already if your case was that strong and walked away with a multimillion dollar settlement at least.
Click to expand...

Evidence you say?

You mean like the accused openly saying on tape that he does to women exactly what the women said he did to them?

That kind of thing?
 
cawacko said:
Look at the Derrick Rose rape trial
Click to expand...

More importantly of note during the deposition, Rose made a statement so shocking that it cut right to the heart of what patriarchy is all about. Unless otherwise stated, the desires of a man trump (pun intended) any civil, personal or physical rights of a woman. It should be noted that a toxicologist estimated her blood alcohol content was 0.20, which is more than double the legal limit. Follow this exchange:

Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’

Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.

Q: I’m sorry?

Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.

…
Q: All right. Is there  —  within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on Aug. 26, 2013?

Rose: No.

What Rose is saying is that up until the very point of actual sexual contact, all consent is presumed, assumed and given. This is rape culture. The notion that unless otherwise stated, sex is always an option on the table. It is not an opt in for you to have access to a woman’s body, she must opt out. The fact that he can’t seem to even wrap his head around that notion is precisely the kind of mindset created by toxic masculinity.

http://theundefeated.com/allday/der...-cleared-of-gang-rape-charges-in-los-angeles/
​
 
Thing1 said:
Evidence you say?

You mean like the accused openly saying on tape that he does to women exactly what the women said he did to them?

That kind of thing?
Click to expand...

Don't you mean THEM saying that he did it to them, AFTER the tape was released.
Can you say "collusion"??
 
tsuke said:
it all depends on your evidence. If you have your testimony plus i believe it was 6 or 10? corroborating witnesses as the media claimed then I would be highly skeptical of you because you would have filed suit already if your case was that strong and walked away with a multimillion dollar settlement at least.
Click to expand...

Far as I know none of these women are filing lawsuits against Trump. They're just united in exposing his piggishness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top