Citation for 33% of british rape victims are male?

- Astraea

I said sexual assault not rape. But you can peruse the ONS web site for the figure.

your dismissal of a woman’s fear is incredibly offensive

I never dismissed a woman’s fear. I have just asked what “male privilege” actually is. Surely, male privilege is walking a girl home after a date to make sure she gets home safely? It’s making an extra journey to pick up a daughter. It’s waiting up for your wife to get home. Its staying out and missing the last train home because your friend is getting drunk and flirting with a couple of guys, and you want to know she’ll be OK. Its doing (sexist) things to know the women you care about are safe. Walking a work coleague home through the alleyway shortcut in mid-winter, so she can get home in time to do the shopping before picking up her daughter. Yes male privilege is great. I enjoy it. But don;t think because I don’t worry about being raped that I don’t have to fear for my safety: mugging, assault and roobery are a far greater danger for both men and women than rape.

BTW your Home Office stat means a woman in the UK is 1/33 chance of being raped over a lifetime. I am not going to say that isn’t a lot, as obviously a 1in33000000 odd would still pose a problem. But I guess its a lot lower than the US figure.

In some parts of the world, male privilege is knowing that if you don’t defend your mother/wife/sister/daughter from rape you won’t be able to live with yourself; but knowing if you do that you may not live at all.

please don’t breed. You might have daughters

- Mythago

And you may have sons.

Because hate speech is objectionable, but still legal.

But threats are not, and racist credible threats are considered hate crimes, yes? (depending on the jurisdiction) That was my point. Not that random insults should be subject to criminal prosecution. Which was made pretty fucking clear by my use of the word “threats” in the exact paragraph you quoted.

I find it disappointing that Feministe wouldn’t take up a challenge to start a fund to out the nastiest posters.

Well, see, here’s the difference between you and me. I’m not really all that much for vigilante acts.

I honestly hadn’t thought of that. I see your point.

Just…wow.

It seems to me that he became the target of a lot of hysterical accusations for “not doing enough,” or “failing to delete.” Well, I showed above that very few of the threads were even actionable — so why should Ciolli have deleted them?

Aw. “Hysterical.” How cute! *pets self-important little lawyer on the head*

Ciolli’s moral responsibility, though perhaps not in a strictly actionable context, is rather self-evident to anyone with HALF A BRAIN and an OUNCE of judgement. Legally liable? Perhaps not. But certainly morally culpable. Ciolli marked himself as an endlessly smirky weasel who continues to deny responsibility for the situation – and what law firm wants to associate themselves with a man who publicly refused to step in when innocent women were being libelled, stalked, and threatened with rape, along with their locations and class schedules and photographs, on his boards? Even when he was expressly asked to remove them? Ciolli only has own legendary bad judgement to blame for his current reputation.

I believe he had to go for another degree, not in the realm of law, did he not? Even then, Google has an awful long memory. Really, it’s such a shame. Really. But that’s the beauty of both the free market and internet free speech, in action!

Ciolli’s attempt to whitewash himself now, with your dedicated help, is almost embarrassingly transparent. I laugh in your general direction.

I guess that I simply mis-judged the collective position toward the pseuds over here. It seems that it is all tar and feathers until someone offers an idea as to how to apply them to the bad guys.

Please provide links in support of this “tar and feathers” mentality, pls.

This blog seems quite friendly to the idea of outing the pseuds

This, too.

My agenda should be clear: I’m a First Amendment attorney. You don’t choose that sub-profession because you think you’ll get rich. You choose that sub-profession because you believe in something.

And your client is Anthony Ciolli, who is an interested party here. He may no longer be named in the suit, but he is interested in damage control.

You (collectively), I thought, wished to see justice brought to the doorstep of these pigs.

Justice, yes. You propose vigilantism.

While your faith in the magic of the market is touching, you’ve done a poor job of articulating the central issue you must be able to articulate in order to convince someone to take up your “challenge,” viz., What’s in it for me?

Look back. I already conceded this point. I’m not interested in convincing you to do this: it was offered as a reasonable plan, seemed like a good idea to me. You’ve shown me that there isn’t enough in it for you to make it worth it for you. Okay, you win.

I guess that I simply mis-judged the collective position toward the pseuds over here. It seems that it is all tar and feathers until someone offers an idea as to how to apply them to the bad guys.

Dude, you’re the one coming onto my blog and pushing your agenda of exposing these defendants. To what end?

Not every issue has to be a conspiracy, Zuzu. The agenda seemed already “pushed.” This blog seems quite friendly to the idea of outing the pseuds — I;m here because I think that court action is the wrong way to do it (or haven’t you read anything I’ve posted?)

My agenda should be clear: I’m a First Amendment attorney. You don’t choose that sub-profession because you think you’ll get rich. You choose that sub-profession because you believe in something.

You (collectively), I thought, wished to see justice brought to the doorstep of these pigs. I wished to see that done without creating First Amendment collateral damage. Nothing deeper than that. I’m a lot simpler than you give me credit for.

For a brief moment, I thought that what I believed in and what you believed in were aligned. Accordingly, over here I came.

I see that I was wrong.

I’ll be on my way.

Now is this kind of nastiness necessary? If I were personally interested in going after these clowns, I’d up my offer to $5,000 and put it on my own blog. Personally, I’d like to see these pricks outed, but I don’t have a dog in the fight.

Oh, civility trolling. My favorite.

Dude, you’re the one coming onto my blog and pushing your agenda of exposing these defendants. To what end?

While your faith in the magic of the market is touching, you’ve done a poor job of articulating the central issue you must be able to articulate in order to convince someone to take up your “challenge,” viz., What’s in it for me? I’d certainly get no benefit from exposing these guys just for the sake of exposing them, nor, I would imagine, would Jill. You didn’t even think of the rather obvious downside to us, which shows a shocking lack of thought invested into your proposal.

Since I highly doubt your motives are purely altruistic, we must then consider who *would* benefit should we take up your “challenge” and offer a bounty on AK47 and his ilk. And considering your continuing advocacy of this proposal, the answer must be: Anthony Ciolli. Whether or not he’s still in the case, I’m sure it galls him that he’s been outed and has lost a job offer and been exposed as a harassment suit waiting to happen while the posters who are far more actively responsible for the harm done to the Jane Does are safely anonymous. Why not try to get someone else to expose these guys for him and make them suffer what he has?

As far as your invitation to witness the eating of their own over at AutoAdmit: thank you, no.

Here’s the problem with that: what’s the upside to Feministe? How does one avoid the downside? If I start offering a bounty to collect scalps, it’s only a matter of time before someone comes after mine.

I honestly hadn’t thought of that. I see your point.

Are all judges male in your world?

No, but Judge Droney (the judge in the AutoAdmit case) is.

It sounds like your client wants to spread the pain around, frankly. We’re not here to do your dirty work. If you want to throw AK47 and the other Doe defendants under the bus, do it yourself.

Now is this kind of nastiness necessary? If I were personally interested in going after these clowns, I’d up my offer to $5,000 and put it on my own blog. Personally, I’d like to see these pricks outed, but I don’t have a dog in the fight.

Mr. Ciolli, you may have read, is no longer a party to the case. What do you think he gains by seeing AK47 outed? He gets nothing. He came here and put forth a pretty reasonable challenge. It seemed appropriate in this forum, since this forum seems to be quite fixated on the case – and the misconduct of the posters. Now that someone offered a reasonable way to exact justice, nobody cares anymore.

With respect to RKMK’s statement that it is a matter of opinion that Mr. Ciolli didn’t do anything wrong, well… back it up.

What did Ciolli do?

It seems to me that he became the target of a lot of hysterical accusations for “not doing enough,” or “failing to delete.” Well, I showed above that very few of the threads were even actionable — so why should Ciolli have deleted them?

Furthermore, if you take a little trip over to AutoAdmit, do a search for Ciolli’s name. There are threads accusing him of being a pedophile, engaging in incest, and any number of other clearly-defamatory postings — most posted before he resigned from AutoAdmit. Do you think that if he had the power to remove postings, perhaps he would have started with those?

You saw the result it had with respect to Mr. Ciolli’s career: And he didn’t even do anything wrong.

That, truly, is a matter of opinion.

I find it disappointing that Feministe wouldn’t take up a challenge to start a fund to out the nastiest posters.

You’re going to have to live with the disappointment.

Option A) Plod to some male authority figure in a black robe and ask him “may we please have their names?” Wait for the courts — by the time that is done (with appeals and all), these guys might be name partners at their firms. Also, as noted above, it may come back to haunt us all one day.

Are all judges male in your world?

You seem to believe that you’re not dealing with people who are familiar with legal procedure. There’s no way a discovery dispute takes the seven or so years it takes to make partner (if, indeed, any of these guys make partner, which is a rarer and rarer event at the big law firms they all crow about so much).

Option B) DIY. Cut out the middleman.

You saw the result it had with respect to Mr. Ciolli’s career: And he didn’t even do anything wrong.

Imagine the results for Mr. “47″

Here’s the problem with that: what’s the upside to Feministe? How does one avoid the downside? If I start offering a bounty to collect scalps, it’s only a matter of time before someone comes after mine.

There were a series of outings over a year ago, and then a series of DDoS attacks. The outings were done for petty revenge, and the DDoS attacks were done for shits and giggles. Do you really think that offering people money is going to reduce the potential for abuse?

It sounds like your client wants to spread the pain around, frankly. We’re not here to do your dirty work. If you want to throw AK47 and the other Doe defendants under the bus, do it yourself.