And FWIW my GF was groped during an exam by a pain doctor and testified against him in court.
You know, you don’t have to take rape statistics personally. A huge fraction of men have committed rape, or will some day, or would if they could, and another huge fraction behave like creeps while not actually raping anybody. So you could be the guy who’s trying to argue those fractions are actually tiny, and besides it’s all womens’ fault - or you could be the guy who’s trying to actually make the number smaller. I’m not sure if you can do both,
1 Like
But also FWIW a properly conducted Pain examination is particularly ‘hands on’ (looking for trigger points, assessing changes in sensation and the like) — so potentially misconstrued even after an appropriate explanation. All the more reason for a medical practitioner in that particular specialty to need a chaperone for their own protection.
Also FWIW, that’s one of the reasons why I have absolutely no desire to practice Pain Medicine, despite it being a potential subspecialty of my anaesthesia training …
1 Like
Mind reading, passive aggressiveness, ad hominems, driving trollies, projective identification, victimization etc etc
You should really spend a day on projective identification which is how someone manipulates other people into the role of the bad guy.
2 Likes
1 Like
Ah, yes, women don’t know when they’ve been assaulted, of course!
I take it you’re trying to be sarcastic? It doesn’t work very well in print, so I won’t rise to the perceived bait.
In the situation PrestonSturges described, either some doctors pick Pain so they have an excuse to grope patients or an unusual proportion of patients in Pain clinics misconstrue. My perception of the situation is naturally biased by the fact that I’m not inclined to abuse my position of trust —and deeply resent any suggestion that I would— so I pointed out how a Pain examination involves a lot of touch and suggested that a chaperone is a good idea to protect both parties.
I really don’t think there’s anything controversial there?
1 Like
We’re talking about a woman who has been a victim of sexual assault, and all you and many others in this thread can talk about are “false claims” as if it’s something that happens with any regularity. So many “it happens a lot” claims and yet no actual evidence to back it up! I even had someone try to throw me the “it even says false witness in the bible!” argument at me as if that was a real argument!
You’ve officially moved the subject from a woman who has been a victim of assault, to talking about how there are TOTALLY women who lie and make false claims (even though the evidence suggests this actually pretty rare). You’re completely off-topic, and instead of focusing on the topic at hand, and the victim, you and others are instead making the conversation about false claims because obviously we can’t have a discussion about sexual assault without being reminded about what lying whores women are, right? Happens every time.
BUT BUT!! False claims! Let’s talk about that instead!! Screw the victims; let’s instead make sure everyone is aware that some women claim rape falsely, even though it’s actually REALLY RARE, and there are FAR more victims of sexual assault than there are women who make false claims. But once again, the subject has been switched from speaking about something that nearly every single woman has experienced, and instead we are now speaking about something that’s actually very rare and that the near majority of men will never, ever have to worry about.
Every fucking time.
And what does pain management have to do with this woman’s story? It’s totally off fucking topic!
But sure, sure, let’s make it all about you!
5 Likes
Wow. And of course, a lot of people could take the last two to heart, of course:
despite my anger, I really hope that this dude gets help. I’m incredibly hesitant to lay all of his behaviour on mental illness after hearing (private) accounts of people’s personal experiences with him, but I’m not a doctor, nor do I know him personally.
no matter what side you’re on or what you believe, please don’t be an asshole.
People are using this to go off on false claims, rape stats, etc., and beat up on each other instead of discussing the issue. There’s another story here: the attacker is mentally ill. He sounds like he has a history of being kind of an asshole when he has it under control; nevertheless, maybe we could spare some compassion for him as well. Even people who aren’t assholes when they’re “normal” get treated with distrust and fear, and even more people treat illness like we can separate it between mental illness and real illness.
I guess what I’m doing is asking if we could stop being assholes and take a moment to show some compassion for all concerned?
Actually…this is where it gets weird, because those stats are based (iirc) on guilty please. And again, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal (I’m replying to a comment with a “I know of not one single person” comment, so eh), but I personally know someone who went to court and was found innocent of child molestation charges; like, beyond the shadow of a doubt, but was given this bargain before it went to trial: plead guilty, and get a minimum sentence, or take it to trial, and if the verdict was guilty (and it was heavily implied that he would almost certainly be found guilty no matter what) that he would receive a maximum sentence.
2 Likes
In the context of the original post, there is no doubt that Emily had a shitty and inexcusable experience which was dealt with poorly and furthermore that the perpetrator should have been picked up and ‘re-educated’ and/or treated long before he got to her. There, back on topic — and we agree. Happy?
However, I do also have a vested interest in defending my profession. Complaints about physical examination —in particular a case in Pain— were brought up. This is an area where there are complaints of sexual assault which are found to be unfounded when investigated. There are also —to my dismay— complaints which are entirely justified and the doctor involved has the book thrown at them (and good riddance to bad rubbish). My perception is however that in the healthcare environment the former outnumber the latter, while you will inevitably argue that —in your eyes— that is not the case. I’m not going to further engage on that, just take it as read that this is where we disagree. I’ll just reiterate that chaperones are a good thing as they protect both parties …
3 Likes
Your profession is highly off-topic and has nothing at all to do with the topi at hand. Just because off-topic, derailing subjects were brought up (and talking about “false claims” is classic derailing in this context), does not mean you needed to participate.
You’re still making it all about you. Lovely.
complaints which are entirely justified and the doctor involved has the book thrown at them (and good riddance to bad rubbish). My perception is however that in the healthcare environment the former outnumber the latter,
Your perception is WRONG and flies against all logic and common sense. Do you know how many assaults in general are even reported? Very few. Do you know how many which are reported are pursued? Very few. Do you know how many rapists see the court of law, let alone are brought to justice? VERY, VERY few.
Your perception is wrong. I have statistics on my side. You haven’t provided me anything except your skewed perception. (Oh, imagine that. A man hasn’t perceived much in the way of sexual harassment and assault. Shocker! And that totally means it doesn’t happen! No one has ever claimed that before!)
The fact that you think the doctors are reported let alone have the book thrown at them just shows me how little you understand this subject, and how much you are basing your opinion on YOUR perceptions (which you’ve actually stated).
Because, of course, it’s all about you.
2 Likes
Women are far more likely to get raped than men are to be falsely accused of anything, and that’s a fact. There is well known beyond a shadow of a doubt.
mod note: Stay on topic.
1 Like
Forgive me if I’m not getting the context right, but I’m male and this jumped out at me.
The cost of a rape accusation for a male is so high as to always justify protective measures. It’s not about sexism, or what all women will do, it’s about making sure your life isn’t ruined by someone out of spite (because the reality is that there is little cost for a woman making a false claim of sexual assault. She won’t be punished if she’s discovered).
Just because some here haven’t encountered liars (I have), or that false accusation/the threat thereof is fairly rare, doesn’t mean it isn’t a risk that men have to deal with. Just because I’m not a rapist isn’t any protection from being accused of being one (hell, I’m gay. I have zero interest in women, but I still have to be aware that they can fuck me over without a shred of proof if that is what they want to do. The vast majority of women won’t, but I can’t take that risk - ask yourself: would you in my position?).
Sure, if you’re a rapist you deserve what’s coming to you (if anything, unfortunately), but the rest of us don’t deserve to be treated as automatically guilty and tainted just because some of us are.
Assumption of guilt, that’s the reality of the situation for men. Just because it is a lesser problem than the reality of sexual assault for women doesn’t make it not a problem.
1 Like
I’m going to speak as someone who is mentally ill: Mental illness is an explanation of behaviour, not automatically an excuse for it.
In this case he sounds like he’s in the middle of an episode, and is likely to be non compos mentis. However, in previous instances, it sounds as though his illness was a contributory rather than a causal factor for his behaviour.
I don’t think we’ve really heard any account of him being under control, he isn’t exhibiting behaviour that I would describe as appropriate (and that’s a dead give away for mental illness - if you start doing socially unacceptable things then your illness is likely to be the culprit in most cases).
Mental illness isn’t a binary state of illness and wellness. In the case of serious illness, you travel through a gradient, on waves of ups and downs, throughout your life. Some periods in your life will be better, and some worse (it has taken me 25 years to find a combination of medication that has given me what I assume is an experience of life similar to what normal people feel. Some people aren’t nearly as lucky as I’ve been).
The biggest problem here is that his mental illness is a complicating factor that muddies the waters (and it totally messes up the vested interests with an axe to grind on either side of the debate. He’s probably not in control of his behaviour, and she’s pulling the “I have mentally ill friends” card so she can sidestep any difficult questions about his presence in the act. There’s nobody to cheer for here).
It’s not ok what he’s done, regardless of illness or not. It happened. There’s a victim. That cannot be ignored or diminished. He will have to account for his behaviour at some point.
It’s also not ok what she’s done. Being a twitter vigilante is no substitute for going to the police, which as far as I can tell, she hasn’t. Unfortunately, sympathy over what has happened to her (which is justified) is going to overwhelm what little, if any, judgement there would be over what she has done. If you don’t get help from your management, or HR, then you go to the police, you do not go on twitter. I can only assume she believed she’d get no satisfaction from the law (and there’s probably some truth to that. Convicting someone that is non compos mentis is an entirely different beast to a standard proceeding) so she decided to get some revenge on twitter. She’s not evil, she’s just human and in pain - I can totally understand why she’s done what she has.
There are no winners here. Sexual assault hasn’t been vanquished, safety for women hasn’t been increased, appropriate management and interventions for the problematic behaviours of mentally ill people in the workplace haven’t been created, etc. One victim started the ball rolling on a tar and feather session of the mentally ill person who assaulted her, and then a whole bunch of people jumped on that train (including all of us here). Nothing was achieved, nobody changed their minds, everyone got pissed off - exactly the same way it happens every single time this comes up. This isn’t the road to the solutions for the problem of sexual assault and it’s about time we figured that out.
It’s incredibly tiresome that men continually take posts about victims and turn them into threads about a) false accusations and b) pity the poor attacker. Posting this for the second time in this thread because it just won’t sink in:
6 Likes
But all the rapists on your infographic are male!
“It’s also not ok what she’s done. Being a twitter vigilante is no substitute for going to the police, which as far as I can tell, she hasn’t. Unfortunately, sympathy over what has happened to her (which is justified) is going to overwhelm what little, if any, judgement there would be over what she has done. If you don’t get help from your management, or HR, then you go to the police, you do not go on twitter.”
Everyone is absolutely entitled to accuse people in public of crimes. The idea that victims are allowed to talk only to The Authorities and that accused criminals have the right to other people’s silence is absurd, cartoon-patriarchy-embodying nonsense. Anyone can talk to anyone they choose, in the venue of their choice, and civil law is the remedy for falsity.
If he doesn’t like it, maybe he can…
…go to the police.
5 Likes
Sorry, but life is complex, even when that fact is inconvenient for some. If the world was just goodies and baddies then the simplistic thinking that is endemic to most people’s problem solving methods would be entirely valid - it’s not and it isn’t.
That you are unable to separate my (apparent) sympathy for him as a person with mental illness with my lack of sympathy of him as a person that has committed a sexual assault is a flaw in your own thinking, not mine. That you cannot or will not even consider the victim’s motivations for her conduct (which may not dovetail with your preconceived notions) is your flaw, not mine.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask “Why are you on twitter and not down at the police station?” of her. I don’t understand why people who are (supposedly) on her side are infantilising her and removing any agency or responsibility she has here. It’s a hypocritical case of saying “Oh no, you can’t question her at all - she must be telling the 100% truth solely because she is a woman and she’s alleged a sexual crime”.
Even if she is telling the truth (and I don’t doubt it) then you are still hearing only one side of the story. That the court of public opinion here is willing to swallow that unthinkingly is one thing, but it certainly makes the argument for going to the law. At least the law is willing to look at both sides with impartiality (or at least that’s how it’s supposed to be).
I don’t accept that you should just switch your brain off when you see an infographic that affirms your existing beliefs. If you go to the actual page it is literally an entire post about the flaws and caveats in the infographic (and kudos to the author for frankly admitting as much). IMO, the infographic is bad because it gets used like it has been here - stripped of context and to push a particular agenda in an unthinking and uncritical manner.
If it is purely about statistics (and it clearly isn’t) then I look at that infographic and I see that out of 100 men, only 10 were proven to be guilty - not exactly a rapist lurking around every corner when we look at the facts in a different light, is it? If the victims didn’t consider legal remedy important enough to pursue then I’m not going to bother placing stock in their unproven accusations (in the same way I’m not going to listen to any slander or libel). That’s not taking the side of the rapists, that’s taking the side of the law and of my own expectations of how a person should participate in society.
If you refuse to report a crime, how can you expect the criminal to be brought to justice? Why is it okay for a woman to not report a sexual assault but for her and everyone else to act like it is established fact?
I’m not going to just go ahead and canonise the victim simply because she said something happened to her. Until it is proven, it is nothing more than an accusation and should be treated as such (rather than a rallying banner for everyone with an axe to grind).
She’s a person to me, with all the complexity thereof, not some cardboard cut out construct for me to map a notion of one-dimensional victim hood onto. Still, I’m doubtful that that notion is going to sink in for you (or anyone else with an investment in a victim hood mentality).
Everyone in the US has a right to say whatever they like about whomever and whatever they like. However, there’s a giant difference between could and should IMO. I could call the President names, but I most certainly shouldn’t (A, because I’m not a racist, and B, because it is a horrible thing to say - and people will rightly judge me for it).
Conversely to the right of free speech is the lack of protection from consequences of that speech. You tell me why it is reasonable for her to speak but it is unreasonable for me to question what she says? Either the same rules govern us, or there is a hypocritical double standard.
She can do whatever she wants, just as I can choose to be critical of what she does. We’re equals aren’t we? Why can’t I judge her by the same standards to which I hold myself?
Firstly, this is a case of could versus should. IMO, she could and should have gone to the police, she could and did go on twitter instead and I believe she shouldn’t have done that as her first (and only, as far as I can tell) action in dealing with this matter. There is no rule saying that I must uncritically pander to everything she does just because she alleges sexual assault.
I believe in the rule of law. You needn’t, but don’t be surprised if we clash over the concept of vigilantism in light of that.
Secondly, I was wondering when the dreaded bogeyman of the patriarchy was going to get hauled out. I guess we are at that point in the conversation now.
My biggest criticism of feminism (given that it isn’t a monolithic movement) comes from the portion of feminists that are only in it for short term advantages. They are only interested in their brand of equality - they only campaign for individual advantages and reject disadvantages and responsibilities.They don’t see the advantages of striving for real equality, being dissuaded from it by a lack of understand of its virtues (or in some cases, simple selfishness).
The crux of the above is that if I wouldn’t tolerate a behaviour in a man, then I shouldn’t tolerate it in a woman. That if women and men are equals, then they must shoulder equal burdens without special favour. That people should be expected to stand to their words and actions, not be shielded from criticism and judgement simply because of their genitalia.
In short, my problem is that I want true equality between the sexes and so many feminists don’t.
This principle is expressed in this situation by the rush of people falling over themselves to censor any criticism or questioning of her actions. It is disempowering and infantilising because it means that she can never be proven to be right and able to withstand questioning. If there is no possibility for her statements and actions to exist on the same level as mine and to be judged as mine would, then the simple fact is that she is not my equal here.
Ha. Sorry, but I live in a country with no enshrined right to free speech, and with specific anti-discrimination laws. Hardly any of the stupidity that goes on in America is tolerated here.
As for the idea that suing your way to remedy (but only if you’re wealthy. Peasants shouldn’t be allowed justice or defence in court) is just more American legal stupidity in action. Your ‘justice’ system is a dog’s breakfast and a joke - the winner in court is decided by how much money you have, people rot in jail for years for one joint because they are poor whilst a billionaire could probably gut a hooker on his front lawn and get a walk. Hell, you’ve even got a mockery of the law called Judge Judy. The whole thing is a circus.
You can initiate civil legal proceedings for slander and libel here, but the evidentiary standards for each are very different from those in the American system. We don’t have much tolerance for vexatious litigation here - and the American style ludicrous payouts for hurt feelings are treated as the joke they are.
[mod edit: removed ableist and racist terms]
