The Feminist Thread

[eversonpoe]

My pet peeve with Kesha's side is that she was offered to work with another producer for her future records, but she insisted on breaking the contract entirely. Why is that not good enough, plus asking it to be in writing that if Sony ever "forgets" that both Kesha and that producer are somehow scheduled at the same place, then Sony has to pay tons of money, even if they just see each other from the hallway. Boom, you can go on making records without ever seeing the one allegedly assaulting you.

And I don't like the impressionable wild child argument. There is a circlejerk about Kesha being this super smart girl, and basically just doing sth similiar to what Gaga did, aka being a persona, and not just a "partypartyparty" girl. Now, if Kesha is indeed a highly intelligent individual, then she should know better to at the very least make a stop of someone abusing you, and not let it roll in front of you for YEARS, then suddenly leash out with accusations which are highly unprovable. I believe she also comes from a rich and influential family, so you can't even say she was Cinderella, who believed she had absolutely zero leverage and rights.

Now, this being a NIN board, we all know how labels are a major pain in the ass if you are a craving artist, and I can easily see Kesha being bullshitted into a now veeery unfavorable contract back then when she was a nobody, and not everyone can afford to pull a Trent Reznor - especially in the pop business - and just quit once you had enough. We do not know how much Sony owns from Kesha, and if it's a big chunk, the more famous you are, the bigger problem it becomes. Though it works the other way around, so even if Kesha was indeed assaulted, Sony would still not give a shit, because all they look at is the money, and who in their right minds would let go a very popular artist who (I believe) is forced to slave away for 6 more albums for you, which is basically most of her remaining career.

Someone is going through hell for sure. Female artists will most likely side with Kesha and refuse to work with that producer, while Kesha will be kept as a slave of Sony. In a Solomonian way, that's the most righteous way this story can end, unless someone can find some hard evidence for either side. But reading the Wiki article, the arguments are so ridiculous, that the producer says he was wished a happy birthday by them, or they happily invited him to Kesha's birthday, something like that, while Kesha's side says the only reason Kesha and co. was so nice to him is because she was afraid. Yeah, good fucking luck being a judge on that one.

It should be a cautious tale, telling people that speak up as soon as possible if you were assaulted, or you will have NOTHING in front of the court, but sadly, it might go the other way, and people will reach the conclusion, that if someone as famous as Kesha gets swept under the rug, then what chance do I have?

standing up to your abuser, especially when they are in a place of power (in this case, a place of power governing your creativity AND career) is one of the most difficult things to do. it's the same reason why people in physically abusive relationships stay with their abusers for years, even defend them to others. it's both a fear of more abuse and a settling into a routine (albeit a horrible one). i was in an emotionally abusive relationship for YEARS and every time i would find a way out, I WENT BACK TO HER because it was familiar. it was depressing and awful but it wasn't until i finally completely ended things that i could see it with any true clarity.

also, the statistics on people who lie about sexual assault are MINUSCULE compared to the amount of sexual assaults that go unreported and/or not convicted. the standard SHOULD be to ALWAYS believe the victim of sexual assault/abuse unless there is concrete evidence provided that they are wrong.

[KarenLeslie]

also, the statistics on people who lie about sexual assault are MINUSCULE compared to the amount of sexual assaults that go unreported and/or not convicted. the standard SHOULD be to ALWAYS believe the victim of sexual assault/abuse unless there is concrete evidence provided that they are wrong.

This concerns me, because I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" should be the standard regardless of the crime. I understand the concern that sexual assault victims are not being well-served by the law, but to try to combat that by taking away the presumption of innocence for specific crimes seems very dangerous to me. There has to be a way to get a higher conviction rate for rapists and abusers without throwing out our whole system of law.

[Wolfkiller]

also, the statistics on people who lie about sexual assault are MINUSCULE compared to the amount of sexual assaults that go unreported and/or not convicted. the standard SHOULD be to ALWAYS believe the victim of sexual assault/abuse unless there is concrete evidence provided that they are wrong.

Where are the stats for how many false allegations go unreported? Or does no one care about that?

Also, you're out of your fucking mind if you honestly think "Guilty until proven innocent" should be the new standard for rape allegations. It's bad enough we have social media lynch mobs harassing people based on accusations alone.

[Sarah K]

The false reports of rape are on par with the false reports of all violent crimes.

It'll be so rad once we move past this fantasy where most rape allegations are just made up.

[Khrz]

also, the statistics on people who lie about sexual assault are MINUSCULE compared to the amount of sexual assaults that go unreported and/or not convicted. the standard SHOULD be to ALWAYS believe the victim of sexual assault/abuse unless there is concrete evidence provided that they are wrong.

The standard should always be "let's review the evidence and judge accordingly". You can't start to nitpick crimes because you end up with a war on drugs situation, where sentences are ridiculously high relative to other crimes and felonies. I understand your point, but it can do no good.

And the problem with your argument is that it's kinda hard to make statistics based on unreported crimes, isn't it ? I don't doubt that the proportion of wrongful accusations is minuscule, but it's difficult to concretely back up. Again, I do believe you're right. But bending the rules on how certain crimes should be treated based on wobbly statistics sounds like a very bad idea.

And as @Wolfkiller said, it's not just a matter of process. Sexual assault has a tendency to become in some cases a very public affair. Guilty until proved innocent doesn't work in the public eye, people forget, and have a very short attention span. Once proven innocent your side of the story doesn't matter anymore, you're the one who was once guilty.

[Wolfkiller]

So a woman claims she was raped and didn't report it = rape
A man claims he was falsely accused but didn't report it = rapist.

It will be so rad when we move past this fantasy of women rarely being lying psychopaths.

[playwithfire]

I'm just going to wait out this thread being not-gross.

[Sarah K]

I never said that a person who was falsely accused should be labeled a rapist. Not sure where you're coming up with that. But if you look it up, the false reports of violent crimes is between 2% and 8%. The false report of rapes falls within that window, as well.

I mean, it would be nice if all of those were made up, but they aren't.

Women aren't the only ones who get raped, and men aren't the only ones doing the raping.

[Volband]

also, the statistics on people who lie about sexual assault are MINUSCULE compared to the amount of sexual assaults that go unreported and/or not convicted. the standard SHOULD be to ALWAYS believe the victim of sexual assault/abuse unless there is concrete evidence provided that they are wrong.

All right, you had me until this point. And by had me, I mean Iwas returning to my original point of it's basically being a 50-50. But what you just said here is absolutely bollocks, and purely your emotions talking.

You would eradicate a basic human right in your country in certain situations because statistics? That would be a precedent which inevitably leads to the collapse of the legitimate law system. In no democratic country such thing exists as "innocent until proven guilty, EXCEPT..." or "There are hardly any evidence against you and even those are very shaky, BUT THE STATISTICS SAY..."

The best counter-argument I can come up right now is the very case this discussion came up: Kesha's. You literally said, I quote "the standard SHOULD be to ALWAYS believe the victim of sexual assault/abuse unless there is concrete evidence provided that they are wrong." And here is a case with basically Z E R O evidence against the guy. Zero. Nothing. Pure words. Would you really want a law-system where certain individuals, even without soft evidence presented, let alone hard ones, can be treated as lesser human beings, because of... statistics? Basically every men who were around a certain woman for as long as Kesha and her producer were working together could be instantly sentenced simply by said female pressing charges. That is insanity. Now add to the mix that Kesha would even get a free pass out of a LEGAL contract.

There have already been precedents of people being wrongfully sentenced, and mind you, these people actually had many stuff against them, suggesting they committed these crimes, but eventually turned out they were innocent. I don't think a remake of 12 Angry Men in 2016 should have a plot of 12 jury members discussing a case where X said Y did something, but has no evidence whatsoever, and that's literally it.

[Sarah K]

I don't think he's saying the person accused should automatically be viewed as guilty. Simply that the victim should be believed until there is a reason to not believe them - just like how victims of all other crimes are generally treated. Sexual assault is basically the only time the person reporting a crime gets an in depth interrogation.

[Wolfkiller]

I was talking about UNREPORTED false accusations. You know, like unreported rapes. There seems to be plenty of weight given to one while the other is ignored.

I'm fully aware men aren't always the rapist/attacker and women aren't always the victims, but you wouldn't know it from listening to the shit that passes for feminism these days.

[Volband]

I'm just going to wait out this thread being not-gross.

I think it's actually the most real controversial topic, and it is so basic, that it is free for interpretation, so you can apply and try to make whatever view you consider yours. I mean, most of the stuff we talked about were fringe, radical stuff. Something you really have to work to even find, and in no way you can say "yeah, this is totally an everyday issue"; ie. the marathon runner who chose to bleed, or that stupid advertisement about consent.

This case, however, is very similiar to the ones which eventually makes up stories for and against certain feminist movements. When these are happening with common, "noname" people, the outcome is either a.) I'm a woman and no one gave a shit I was raped, or b.) I'm a man and my life is now in shambles, because I was falsely convicted of rape. Of course, these cases rarely get media attention, so you usually only get one side of the story, which is practically useless if you want to form an objective opinion.

Seeing how people struggle with this case just goes to show why so many men and women hate are floating around in certain corners of the internet, and surely, in some people's everyday life.

I don't think he's saying the person accused should automatically be viewed as guilty. Simply that the victim should be believed until there is a reason to not believe them - just like how victims of all other crimes are generally treated. Sexual assault is basically the only time the person reporting a crime gets an in depth interrogation.

I wouldn't want the victim treated as a liar either, but in the big picture, if no one can come up with anything, then the case should be looked as dead. Even if Kesha was indeed assaulted, and even if the "she was too afraid to lose everything by coming out" argument is a solid one, the point is, in 2016, she can't prove anything. Even if the jury (or whoever) has to believe her by standard, you can't possibly judge the producer guilty just because Kesha's story of why coming out this late makes perfect sense. And if you can't judge the producer, it is really hard to justify breaking such a strong contact, when Sony is willing ti guarantee Kesha has never have to see this person ever again.

[playwithfire]

This isn't like... this shouldn't be a thing.

Rape is nearly impossible to prove. It just is. So "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to rape doesn't really work. I support a fair justice system but rape being like... a prosecutable crime is dubious a lot of the time. And we don't believe women. We don't. We don't believe people who were raped. I'm not going to debate this shit, though. I think it's an ugly, ugly topic and it makes me sad that people feel the way they do about it. So I'm just going to wait until this dies down.

[allegro]

Rape is nearly impossible to prove. It just is.

That's 100% not true but I'm not going to get into the really boring topic of law; I don't want to turn this into a thread of Criminal Justice 101.

(one should note that most settle out of court, though, but MOST criminal and civil cases settle out of court so this isn't unusual)

The problem is evidence, and he said/she said as to what was consensual and not consensual, especially in cases like Kesha's.

Regarding Kesha: I think she should have gone with a Sony contract sans any contact at all with Dr. Kook. That was an acceptable compromise. Now, she's stuck with both Sony and Dr. Kook. Unless she totally wrecks her career and refuses to work at all. Which, personally, I would do. a/k/a "pulling a Prince."

[Wolfkiller]

We don't believe people that claim they are raped? Are you joking? Did you read all of the horrible shit that was posted on James Deen's instagram after Stoya and her friends came out to accuse him? #istandwithstoya #istandwithkesha ?? You are aware people LITERALLY got lynched back in the day for this? As if people still don't get verbally (and sometimes physically) attacked based on accusations alone? Take your blinders off.

[KarenLeslie]

I'm just going to wait out this thread being not-gross.

You know, I'm really tired of the overuse of the word "gross." I realize it's because practically every other negative adjective is now considered at best problematic and at worst hate speech, but there has to be a better word. The implication "I disagree with these opinions, therefore they are PHYSICALLY REVOLTING" is just cheap.

[playwithfire]

I very much meant it. I think some of the stuff being said here is disgusting. It grosses me out. It's nasty. It's revolting.

The problem is evidence, and he said/she said as to what was consensual and not consensual.

I guess this is what I meant, and don't want to be like "allegro teach me how the law works" but if you want to point me in the right direction I would be curious to learn a bit. I'm not involved in the legal system but the lack of witnesses and evidence seemed to be a big issue.

[allegro]

I guess this is what I meant, and don't want to be like "allegro teach me how the law works" but if you want to point me in the right direction I would be curious to learn a bit. I'm not involved in the legal system but the lack of witnesses and evidence seemed to be a big issue.

Most MURDER cases have lack of witnesses and don't have a whole hell of a lot of evidence, but you don't NEED evidence in criminal cases: you only need means, motive and opportunity for criminal cases. Evidence is only needed in civil cases, contrary to what most people understand. Jury trials want evidence in sexual assault cases because of old archaic system of patriarchy and the fear that somehow men are becoming hapless victims of whores. But the system doesn't look at how many young men are hapless victims of the criminal system (dirty cops, crooked prosecutors, etc.) Nope, the women "making up" rape stories, that's the only time the justice system is allegedly slanted.

Even if there is obvious evidence of sexual assault (bruises, bleeding and signs of forced penetration, scratches on the assailant, etc.) the accused will often claim that it was consensual "rough sex."

In countries like Saudi Arabia, with Sharia laws, if a woman is sexually assaulted and reports it, the WOMAN is arrested for having sex.

Anyway, what you need to prove a sexual assault case (just like any other criminal case): means, motive, opportunity. But the system looks at it as some kind of alien type of criminal case, needing DNA or other evidence because of old archaic vestiges of a system where women were fair game. But, believe me, there are many men serving time in prison for sexual assaults and murders they did not commit; the Innocence Project has freed quite a few of them. This isn't due to the women (they're dead), but due to crooked prosecutors and dirty cops, with zero evidence or crooked evidence and paid-off witnesses.

The prosecutor can have witnesses that can attest to the state-of-mind of the two parties up until that time, etc. In Kesha's case, witnesses could probably attest to Kesha's having been obviously controlled by this Dr Kook guy. Means, motive, opportunity.

But, this WAS NOT a criminal case, from what I understand. It was a contract law civil case.

From the Washington Post:

What happened on Friday? New York Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich denied Kesha’s request for a preliminary injunction in the case, which would have allowed the singer to record songs outside of her contract until the case is finalized. That Kesha’s request wasn’t granted doesn’t mean her case is dead, but it does mean she has a long road ahead of her. The judge said Kesha’s filing would require the court to “decimate a contract that was heavily negotiated and typical for the industry.” Dr. Luke and Sony have said Kesha is free to work with another producer on upcoming albums to fulfill her contract with the label, but that’s an offer Kesha has refused. “My instinct is to do the commercially reasonable thing,” Judge Kornreich said Friday.

[KarenLeslie]

I very much meant it. I think some of the stuff being said here is disgusting. It grosses me out. It's nasty. It's revolting.

Eh, to be honest, that was more me yelling into the wind than directed at you specifically. You do you.

[Volband]

I very much meant it. I think some of the stuff being said here is disgusting. It grosses me out. It's nasty. It's revolting.

There's the expression of putting your head in the sand. Isn't bringing awareness to rape cases and encouraging society to make a stand against rape culture one of the driving force of most feminist movements? There are many households where women are still treated like utter shit, and that toxic mentality leads to other nasty stuff, like rape for example. I think around the time we left our parents' house and started to work for real, we all had to face the sad reality that the world itself is a disgusting and shitty place, and the only reason we are not all severely depressed because at least we can choose who we hang with, and us humans being a social entity, we can enjoy our time in our own little bubbles, but that doesn't mean the world is actually a nice place.

That little girl I talked about? Got into foster care. I guessed right, she is indeed 4 years old, but who knows, speaking of statistics, she might as well be dead if they can't find a foster family for her. She has spectacular chances of ending up as a homeless junkie, or suicidal. And she lived in a village consisting of what, 1000 people? Her story has an abusive husband from whom the wife had to hide in that village, the wife herself who surely knew something was up with those bruises all over her daughter and the step-brother who beat and raped the little girl. That's 4 trainwreck of human life for you, but if they convict the mother, her other two children might be taken away as well, though I don't know how old they are.

So, please, don't tell me it's gross. You can't possibly want us, or rather, society having your average sex ed. mentality when it comes to stuff like rape.

Of course, I'm not saying everyone SHOULD participate, but you are giving off the vibe like it's just some 20th degree problem in our society, and it will solve itself.

[Wolfkiller]

Not taking sides without evidence and acknowledging that some people do lie about rape accusations. Soooo gross! Being rational is so problematic.

[allegro]

The thing is, this is a contract law case. Commercial law. The New York State Supreme Court can only look at it that way, and can only offer a solution (because this Opinion WILL SET PRECEDENT) from the standpoint of Commercial Contract Law. Not criminal law.

As unfair as that sounds, that's the way it is.

Kesha had already negotiated an 8-album contract with this asshole and Sony. If she wants, she can have 6 bodyguards with her at all time whenever she's around this asshole. There's nothing preventing this. She can bring in any other creative force and songwriting assistance with her. She can USE this Dr. Kook asshole against himself. But, ultimately, she has already ratified the contract by making two albums with Dr. Kook, and now there is no way to get out of a contract with Sony. Even MICHAEL JACKSON hated Sony.

The Judge in this case looked at the facts and read the Contract and looked to see if any of the parties had violated the terms of the Contract. And Kesha did not present enough evidence (sadly) to determine that Sony had aggrieved her enough to have technically breached the Contract. The Judge reads the whole friggin' Contract, line by line, and sees if all of the parties did what they are supposed to do, or did what they are not supposed to do, and it is all about the Contract, here, nothing more. If Dr. Kook drugged and assaulted Kesha but no police report was ever filed and she never proceeded with a criminal proceeding, then it is really difficult to apply that to a Contract. Her lawyers probably should have had her file a police report and proceeded with a criminal case, first, so she could then use that to get out of the contract relationship with Dr. Kook although I still don't know, having not read the actual Contract, if that would indicate a breach of Contract with SONY.

[Wolfkiller]

Why is it OK to call him an asshole and Dr. Kook? You don't think that's just as bad as calling Kesha a lying slut etc? Curious what your reasoning is behind that.

[allegro]

Why is it OK to call him an asshole and Dr. Kook? You don't think that's just as bad as calling Kesha a lying slut etc? Curious what your reasoning is behind that.

Because his response to this just makes him seem like a total dickwad, LOL. And, really, she is totally TRAINWRECKING her career by pulling out of something that was making money, which makes zero sense unless there is some truth to this. There is mostly evidence that his production is what was making the money, along with Sony, and that her pulling out of the relationship with him and Sony is career suicide.

Well, and, also, these producers and labels are really awful, in all forms. They create indentured servitudes. I don't suppose you have ever seen this essay by Steve Albini??

This reminds me a little of Mariah Carey and Tommy Mattola, sans the assault thing. Mattola, of course, was the head of Sony for 15 years, and now co-heads Casablanca in part of UMG. Mariah Carey was 19, Mattola was way the fuck older and he became a svengali, controlling her and her career, etc. Mariah Carey now compares living with Mattola to living in Sing Sing. He now admits it was REALLY inappropriate.

[Volband]

Not taking sides without evidence and acknowledging that some people do lie about rape accusations. Soooo gross! Being rational is so problematic.

Read this: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrollXChrom...makes_me_sick/

Sony: Satan. The producer: Satan. The judge: Satan. Kesha: 110% innocent without any doubt. My favorite is the one comment hinting at killing the producer. I mean, come the fuck on...

[Sarah K]

Maybe a different thread should be created for this?

[playwithfire]

Yes please.

So, please, don't tell me it's gross. You can't possibly want us, or rather, society having your average sex ed. mentality when it comes to stuff like rape.

Of course, I'm not saying everyone SHOULD participate, but you are giving off the vibe like it's just some 20th degree problem in our society, and it will solve itself.

I've commented on my feelings about rape extensively before in this thread or its previous incarnations, if you want to know my feelings I recommend going back and reading it. I don't think you have bad intentions, but I just can't with some of this. Some really gross stuff has been said. I'm done here.

[Wolfkiller]

Artists have issues with their shitty record company contracts all the time. Poe has been stuck in contract hell for over a decade now. I don't think that's solid evidence she was abused. I'm in no place to say she was or wasn't, but it seems really biased to just jump straight to bad mouthing the guy based on the record contract issue alone. Like others have pointed out, if the issue was him and the record company was willing to completely segregate the two, what's the issue? You don't hear me calling her a lying bitch over that though.

Ah yes, cover your eyes and move different opinions to another thread. Sorry, but false rape allegations hurts real victims and that's a real feminist issue. So why should this need a separate thread?

[Sarah K]

It should be a separate thread because it really doesn't have much to do with Feminism.

I'm not saying the topic shouldn't be discussed, but it's not really at all relevant to this thread, and is being used to troll this thread... Again.

[allegro]

oe has been stuck in contract hell for over a decade now. I don't think that's solid evidence she was abused.

But she never claimed to have been sexually assaulted; most of these artists who sign these really long contracts without good legal counsel are very young or come from the sticks or whatever, and then they have no way to get out of the contracts outside of another label buying out the contract or death; that does not mean, however, that Kesha has now attempted a new creative Bill Cosby method of contract nullification; that's unfair. But, her trying to break a contract and professional relationship that has been up-until-now very very successful seems, again, to be career suicide, not to mention publicly assassinating a successful producer; so creative freedom seems, in itself, a really dumb reason to do all of this and spend all of this money on lawyers just for "creative freedom." So, no, it seems like there is some other highly emotional issue, here, when you consider her anorexia, emotional issues, drug use, etc. and how she says lots of that was due to this guy. If she is willing to commit career suicide for this, seems like there might be some real truth to it.

It should be a separate thread because it really doesn't have much to do with Feminism.

No, it doesn't; it's Contract Law 101.

Btw, Kesha's attorney, Mark Geragos, is no schlep.