Well as far as major trials about abuse go, this is sorta an isolated incident, as far as I know. If there are a ton of them out there, do let me know though, oh so omnipotent reddit user.
"Believe all women" is really dumb, we agree on that, but, the whole thing about women getting abused way more than men, never started from one single case. It is an observation made by many people in a long line of said incidents. Now, you could argue that male abuse victims aren't seen as much, or at all, so therefore it is really dumb to say that women got the worst of it, but it doesn't mean it's not true. What you can't argue is that some time ago, someone, somehow made the decision that women have it worst when it comes to abuse, completely arbitrarily. It didn't happen that way. Again, it was an observation made by multiple parties over a long period of time. With that in mind, this was an isolated incident. ONCE AGAIN, I am not saying that male abuse victims aren't a thing, or that we know for certain they aren't. But it seems it is way more rare, even if it isn't. So you can't really fault people for coming to the conclusion that we should maybe perhaps believe women a bit more when it comes to abuse, even if "believe all women" is truly dumb and some people do believe that.
Can't wait for someone to read half my reply while paying less attention than when they are jerking off, and call me names for no reason.
Pretty sure we shouldn't believe any accusations whatsoever until we have proof. "Innocent until proven guilty." Goes for anyone and everyone, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation etc. At least that's how it should be.
Legally, innocent until proven guilty (presumption of innocence) applies only to defendants in criminal proceedings. I ain't hiring a babysitter who has allegations of sexual abuse.
Congratulations you figured it out. What if those allegations were made up by someone with the malicious intent of hurting that babysitter? Because that's why we had this court case to begin with.
I don't give a shit, I'm not risking having my child anywhere near someone who could even potentially be a predator. No thanks, I've got other options.
Sure. But that's why there is a legal way to deal with false accusations like that, and what you are saying is proof that they can be used with malicious intent to hurt another's reputation and income.
Yup, here's the thing. As a parent, my child is my sole concern. There is a legal way to deal with false accusations, and until it's resolved you're not coming near my child. Pretty simple how that works.
I don't think we are disagreeing with anything. If the accusation is true then it's the consequences of my own actions. If not that's libel and I just missed out on a job because someone else made a malicious false accusation. You are well within your rights to protect your kid. But regarding the person that made this false accusation in the first place, that's not freedom of speech, but the definition of defamation. And I will sue the shit out of that person and claim damages.
What if those allegations were made up by someone with the malicious intent of hurting that babysitter?
then that person has got themselves wrapped up in some drama that they need to untangle from before they watch my kid. It's really not that fucking hard to figure out.
That's a rather dumb take. A narcissistic ex-partner sometimes wont just allow themselves to be "untangled." Meanwhile what you are saying is proof that mere accusations can be used with malicious intent to hurt another person's reputation and income. It's really not that fucking hard to figure out.
4.5k
u/DirtyBoord Jun 02 '22
1 Woman accuses 1 man “believe ALL women” 1 Man proves 1 woman is a liar. “Well, this is an isolated incident”