tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post4935021849581785921..comments2023-08-16T18:43:09.506+08:00Comments on Barnyard Chorus: BREAKING: More women say: I deserve justice by my own terms, I'm worth it.Farmer Plant'Alothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16367998061640199713noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-42607850545309364522009-12-26T16:15:02.737+08:002009-12-26T16:15:02.737+08:00I just find it regrettable that the only objective...I just find it regrettable that the only objective viewpoint - Prof Hor's statement that the law as it stands is open to abuse by any party - seems to have been an afterthought. It's insertion at the end of the article makes it immediately forgettable, which is a crying shame! <br /><br />I think the point the others are trying to make concerns the manner in which the article was framed, which automatically insinuates (well, quite blatantly) that women are out for a quick buck by randomly accusing men of molest.<br /><br />The ST was quick to call this a "trend". Really, you can't glean any truth from the reporting because none of these matters (all anecdotal, from the lawyers) went to trial. It's just his word against hers. <br /><br />It just seems to me to be an easy excuse to not admit that it may have happened, given the context of a nightclub.<br /><br />- The PoultrygeistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-71067300217537462442009-12-26T08:39:21.608+08:002009-12-26T08:39:21.608+08:00@Laremy -
It'll probably bore you, but I'...@Laremy -<br /><br />It'll probably bore you, but I'll echo MC and CitC on the point of playing devil's advocate. Adding to which, I personally don't think all alternative views, for the sake of seeking some mythically good balanced argument, are actually valid.<br /><br />I get that you remain convinced--and good for you too--that the central point is about false accusations that escalate men's suffering. My post doesn't address that because it's not the main problem for me in this article. The omission of the point mustn't be taken to suggest I don't think your point has validity. Both FP and MC have acknowledged that this is open to debate, but I don't think it detracts from the main content of my post.<br /><br />You are always welcome to offer your version of devil's advocacy or angle for balance, if you feel strongly about it, as you've done here. Though whether or not all of us will entertain you, is a wholly separate matter :) (But we've so far been quite nice, right?)<br /><br /><br />- BDPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-73776393471664688382009-12-26T06:51:23.276+08:002009-12-26T06:51:23.276+08:00Really late to the conversation (as usual) but the...Really late to the conversation (as usual) but the way I see it is that we're a chorus against the status quo.<br /><br />Charitable readings of articles like this is the norm and is how the average person would see it. This being the case, we do not have to argue for this viewpoint because it is already well represented in the general population and practically celebrated by mainstream media (and really, in some not-so-mainstream places as well).<br /><br />I see your point, Laremy, about not existing in an echo chamber, and it's an important goal to have. While us gathered here at the Barn have a similar outlook, that outlook is one of questioning the status quo and advocating against what is otherwise widely accepted and acceptable.<br /><br />We <i>are</i> the devil's advocates here. The voices we advocate against are already well represented.Cat in the Creamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17807503049047019989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-58684250975250378752009-12-26T04:38:32.439+08:002009-12-26T04:38:32.439+08:00Nevertheless, the article does demonstrate that OM...<i>Nevertheless, the article does demonstrate that OM, whether alleged or actual, affects both women and men. Perhaps this should be acknowledged at some point in the blogpost?</i><br /><br />It's extremely unclear what you're saying, or claiming that the article is saying. The Straits Times article is essentially entirely about Conniving Bitchez Scheming to Make Men Suffer. By suggesting that it is somehow about how the offence of outrage of modesty "affects both women and men", it seems to me your statement is conflating these Conniving Bitchez with actual sexual assault again. Which is what I - at least - am arguing against. So what exactly is it you think "should be acknowledged"?<br /><br />False accusations in the case of criminal offences might be interesting to discuss at some point. This article - being soaked irretrievably in rape culture - is not, in my opinion, a good launching point for doing so. What it <i>is</i> is a great launching point for discussing rape culture. As we are doing. I think a discussion of rape culture is valuable enough to have in and of itself - don't you?<br /><br /><i>P.S. It'd be nice if one of you took turns to play Devil's Advocate... Otherwise, discussions might turn into a 'chorus' in all senses of the word!</i><br /><br />Speaking for myself only, I have no time for devil's advocacy. Our perspectives should consider all angles, but those angles which are grounded primarily in hatred and prejudice do not need extensive airing or mimicking us. As a basic reading of Barnyard Chorus shows, there's a whole world of people busy propagating bigotry and narrow-mindedness out there. By refuting it, we are inherently providing balance. There's no need for us to ventriloquise hateful and prejudiced views ourselves.Magical Chickenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13256590984043739432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-75319203965964476882009-12-26T03:47:01.109+08:002009-12-26T03:47:01.109+08:00Hi everyone,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I tried t...Hi everyone,<br /><br />Thanks for your thoughts.<br /><br />I tried to digest everyone's responses and I apologise if I cannot distill all the ideas into a coherent thread.<br /><br />First, I would say I agree with The Poultrygeist quite a bit. It is only fair to interview the women of the story, but their voices are suspiciously silent.<br /><br />Second, I also agree that the picture was a bad choice, and the way the headline was angled does contribute to the problem of the "perpetuation of the conniving woman myth".<br /><br />In this instance, the paper must adopt some form of social responsibility by being more aware of nuance and meaning as suggested through graphics and framing.<br /><br />Last but not least, the thesis of the article might have been lost in translation, from the editing of the article to its eventual publication. The sensationalising of the article definitely does not help matters.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the article does demonstrate that OM, whether alleged or actual, affects both women and men. Perhaps this should be acknowledged at some point in the blogpost?<br /><br />P.S. It'd be nice if one of you took turns to play Devil's Advocate... Otherwise, discussions might turn into a 'chorus' in all senses of the word!<br /><br />Merry Christmas and thanks for posting up much fodder for thought :)Laremyhttp://laremy.sg/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-18031081828340544082009-12-25T18:47:26.759+08:002009-12-25T18:47:26.759+08:00@MC - "There's also the rather sickening ...@MC - "There's also the rather sickening symmetry with sex offender registries... I wouldn't be surprised if that is intentional."<br /><br />Ditto! Had the same thought.Badly Drawn Pighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15625045477626584310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-38257722833450170632009-12-25T18:42:25.026+08:002009-12-25T18:42:25.026+08:00(In case it wasn't clear the first time round....(In case it wasn't clear the first time round. I realise I can be imprecise.)<br /><br />The ST Tag accompanying their illustration at ST Online: "MEN who find themselves accused of molest after a drunken bout of revelry are paying more to settle the cases. In one case, a businessman paid $50,000 to a woman who accused him of touching her buttocks in order to avoid prosecution. Lawyers told The Straits Times that they are seeing more cases, and the amounts have also risen significantly. The trend is worrying them as it might lead to the system being abused."<br /><br />On top of which, the accompanying inset piece makes an example of a motorist-assault case where the defendant was fined 1K instead of his offer of a 7.5K compound, as if to suggest that the 7.5K deal is unreasonable since a 1K fine would have obviously sufficed.<br /><br />The thesis is much less noble than Laremy's reading above.; it's saying that it's ridiculous that any woman should be awarded so much money for a mere touch. And I know what's going on in many a people's heads, "Cheaper to go to Geylang, right?"<br /><br />- BDPBadly Drawn Pighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15625045477626584310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-27394013783501795282009-12-25T18:38:57.191+08:002009-12-25T18:38:57.191+08:00Beka, yes, the registry aspect really tips this in...Beka, yes, the registry aspect really tips this into the realm of the farcical. We need to make our victim-shaming administratively easier! There's also the rather sickening symmetry with sex offender registries... I wouldn't be surprised if that is intentional.Magical Chickenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13256590984043739432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-76140705916481958972009-12-25T18:32:20.840+08:002009-12-25T18:32:20.840+08:00Laremy, the article might state that men who commi...Laremy, the article might state that men who commit sexual assault could 'buy' themselves out of prosecution, but it also hammers in again and again the idea that unless women conform to one kind of response, they weren't 'really' sexually assaulted at all. The net message is one of immense scepticism to the reality of sexual assault to begin with, by putting all complaints of sexual assault under suspicion unless they conform to (ever more-elastic: please read <a href="http://barnyardchorus.blogspot.com/2009/10/too-much.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> before commenting further) standards of 'good victimhood'.<br /><br />Aside from the picture, there's the headline itself, which totally mischaracterises the situation. Women asking for compensation for sexual assault are emphatically NOT saying "touch me, pay me". They said "Don't touch me. DON'T TOUCH ME. Okay you fucker, you touched me, now justice has to be done." The headline is basically trying tp link them, in the reader's mind, with sex workers, and thereby call upon a host of prejudices that people have about sex workers and their personal boundaries deserving no respect because they are 'for sale'. This is also why there is such an emphasis on the standard to which 'real victims' must conform: so that any woman who feels she would rather have compensation that undergo testifying in court (where she would be interrogated and shamed) can... well, can be interrogated and shamed for not wanting to go to court.<br /><br />This is all about interrogating and shaming women who dare to assert our bodily integrity.<br /><br />I repeat: fuck you, rape culture.Magical Chickenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13256590984043739432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-47846462279923800212009-12-25T18:12:27.596+08:002009-12-25T18:12:27.596+08:00@Beka - The mind boggles!!!
@Laremy - As MC, FP a...@Beka - The mind boggles!!!<br /><br />@Laremy - As MC, FP and TP have suggested, whatever thesis you perceive in this article has been lost to sensationalism and speciousness for me. In fact, the thesis seems either lost, or but merely means to the end of victim-blaming. I'm also not convinced by the strength of the thesis you highlighted in this reporting for reasons expressed by the few of us here on the various realities we understand of the law, club culture, social treatment of women, media narratives, etc, etc, etc.<br /><br />I hope someone sends a letter in to ST soon.<br /><br />- BDPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-89037793146216610302009-12-25T16:42:30.329+08:002009-12-25T16:42:30.329+08:00Hey Laremy,
I don't think the article was tho...Hey Laremy,<br /><br />I don't think the article was thoroughly researched and properly reported for 2 reasons:<br /><br />1. the reporter in choosing to only interview the "aggresor" and several lawyers, has failed to obtain the view of any women who have been involved in these sort of incidents. This is unbalanced and really shows the lack of journalistic maturity in reporting.<br /><br />2. the ST constantly gets soundbites from the same lawyers over and over again on varying issues. Really? there are about 500 practising lawyers out there. is Mr. amolat singh the authority on every legal issue in Singapore today? <br /><br />- The PoultrygeistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-69723159904054951422009-12-25T16:15:26.526+08:002009-12-25T16:15:26.526+08:00(I hope this isn't a double-comment, Blogger a...(I hope this isn't a double-comment, Blogger ate my first.)<br /><br />I just want to say: <i>registry.</i> What.<br /><br />My brain stopped at that.<br /><br />"You must have been doing <i>something</i> to provoke him. How terrible. I'm so sorry, but you were asking for it. Anyway, we're going to put your name on a national database and insist you submit yourself to interrogation in court. Then everyone can be pleasant to you as I have been. You don't want this? Too bad, then, you're not a <i>real</i> victim."<br /><br /><i>Registry.</i> WTF.bekanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-23045085109300904272009-12-25T14:00:29.808+08:002009-12-25T14:00:29.808+08:00Howdy Laremy!
Thanks for dropping by and for your...Howdy Laremy!<br /><br />Thanks for dropping by and for your thoughts.<br /><br />On the farm, we like to let women decide how they wish to seek justice, especially since OM cases can be settled out of court. Prof Mike Hor's suggestion of directing OM to the court is open to substantive debate. Is this the point you wish to discuss?<br /><br />Setting Hor's suggestion aside, I personally don't think it's particularly outrageous for anyone to seek justice in composition, even if it's 20 gazillion dollars. (There're good reasons to avoid going to trial, see Poultrygeist's post on <a href="http://barnyardchorus.blogspot.com/2009/12/investigating-and-prosecuting-sexual.html" rel="nofollow">persecutory hurdles</a>, and if you have time, see Melissa McEwan's <a href="http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/09/her-reasons-are-not-yours.html" rel="nofollow">"Her Reasons Are Not Yours"</a>.) I think everyone should be able to determine their personal worth, and if perps don't wish to be *entrapped* or find out just how horrible the penalty is for assaulting people, then maybe they can learn to respect all people, and keep their hands and other appendages to themselves unless specifically solicited. <br /><br />(See <a href="http://barnyardchorus.blogspot.com/2009/12/sexual-assault-prevention-tips.html" rel="nofollow">"Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work"</a>.)<br /><br />Also, despite your personal perceptiveness in reading the article, I don't think BDP is too far off in his critique of the tonality of the piece that goes beyond just that paragraph of grace. I stand with BDP on this, and am also against the perpetuation of the conniving woman myth that gets enough ringing in our media and minds as it is.<br /><br />As <b>Cat in the Cream</b> commented elsewhere: "That this is a farce should be obvious to even the most casual reader if not for the fact that it reiterates tropes about conniving women and upstanding men.<br /><br />"Men, who have the money, reserving the money for good, chaste women, get tricked out of this money by the evil hordes of women who are sluts (not that the good men have any part in wanton sex acts with these women)."<br /><br />My 2¢.<br /><br />Barny Christmas to you! :)Farmer Plant'Alothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16367998061640199713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-26770490002453423102009-12-25T12:38:58.568+08:002009-12-25T12:38:58.568+08:00Actually, I thought it was a rather balanced artic...Actually, I thought it was a rather balanced article, and the forest may have been missed for some trees.<br /><br />IMHO, the crux of the article (or its thesis) is contained within these lines: <br /><br />"A man of means committing a series of outrages of modesty could 'buy' himself out of prosecution, for example. Alternatively, a calculating victim could try to extract unreasonably large sums of money in exchange for not going to trial."<br /><br />In light of this, I feel the article is doing justice to Justice by ensuring that the law is not undermined because of a possible loophole in the system that women *and* men can exploit.<br /><br />Your thoughts?Laremyhttp://laremy.sg/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977722860251289885.post-60293424363982492852009-12-25T00:16:46.238+08:002009-12-25T00:16:46.238+08:00"These are usually the real victims, lawyers ..."These are usually the real victims, lawyers say."<br /><br />And these lawyers know this how? Because they are Magically hovering about every woman in every night club at every moment? <br /><br />The whole article is a pile of bullshit but one thing which especially gets my wattle wound up is the fucking picture. The article oozes insinuations about lying women who <i>make up claims</i> while the picture depicts a clear-cut case of sexual assault - she's pushing him away. <br /><br />Another day, another equation of women's assertions of bodily integrity with the conniving and mercenary scheming of evil bitchez.<br /><br />Fuck you, rape culture.Magical Chickenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13256590984043739432noreply@blogger.com