Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm not sure what to think about this.

For example, some people don't like the fact that the lads refer to "sluts" in their texts but they then refer to the lads as "a**holes". Is that not demeaning in the same manner?

There is such a thing as sluttish behaviour, d*ckish behaviour. It is subjective as to what constitutes this but are we not allowed to have private conversations where we refer to it as such?

I'm not suggesting it is something everyone does or that these guys view or are entitled to view all women in this manner but there was context to their messages (whether you agree with it or not) and it was a private conversation.

How many people talk to their partner in the evening about someone they work with or were on the bus with and use a term which is less than diplomatic? Should they be castigated for those conversations?

For me the problem is the double standards displayed. The women who engage in this behaviour are sluts but the men legends. This derogatory attitude that women who enjoy sex and threesomes and kink etc are sluts but the men are not. Its not just a descriptive work like 'the loud women' or 'the blond women', its any women hanging out with them on a night like that is a slut. A thing for them to use and throw away for the 'top shaggers' and 'legends' they are.

And yes its not just these men or men in general that holds this view. Maybe nobody would ever feel the need to be ashamed or regret being involved in acts like these if women weren't villified for doing it.

For me its not the words they used in the messages, not the fact they had the allegations bought against them, its their attitudes towards people who are basically doing the exact same thing as them.

And all this 'everyone does it' rubbish - does that make it ok? It has been demonstrated here that clearly not EVERYONe does it, but even if a large portion of that age/social group do its not something to be proud of. We should be saying its not ok to speak of or treat people this way. Should we not be questioning people when it is bought to the public sphere.

zedhead wrote: »

For me the problem is the double standards displayed. The women who engage in this behaviour are sluts but the men legends. This derogatory attitude that women who enjoy sex and threesomes and kink etc are sluts but the men are not. Its not just a descriptive work like 'the loud women' or 'the blond women', its any women hanging out with them on a night like that is a slut. A thing for them to use and throw away for the 'top shaggers' and 'legends' they are.

And yes its not just these men or men in general that holds this view. Maybe nobody would ever feel the need to be ashamed or regret being involved in acts like these if women weren't villified for doing it.

For me its not the words they used in the messages, not the fact they had the allegations bought against them, its their attitudes towards people who are basically doing the exact same thing as them.

And all this 'everyone does it' rubbish - does that make it ok? It has been demonstrated here that clearly not EVERYONe does it, but even if a large portion of that age/social group do its not something to be proud of. We should be saying its not ok to speak of or treat people this way. Should we not be questioning people when it is bought to the public sphere.

All the men involved have now said it was 'not ok' to do it.

Has the complainant yet apologised for calling the other girls there 'slutty'?

padser wrote: »

I'm actually OK living in a society where people are allowed to have private conversations amongst themselves.

If that's a WhatsApp group where a girl gets called a slut, or a conversation where a guy gets called a pig - that's OK.

Are we really at a point where private conversations that say something disparaging about another person are grounds to end someone's careers?

I could be wrong but I think we're sort of talking in terms of society as a whole and not just group chats or texting.

For example, if a person doesn't agree with women or men being disparaged by someone they are having a discussion with, say a friend or a work colleague, then they should speak up and say so regardless of whether that friend or work colleague might then they're being a dick for doing so.

In my post, I was discussing how a lot of posters in the thread have said that they don't like the lads calling the women sluts/brassers/whatever else and some have said "well it was only X who actually used that word" and that the others in the group shouldn't be criticised for what one said. However, by continuing on the discussion by text and not saying "that's derogatory" (or something to that effect) then all members of the group chat are complicit in the use of that language.
A lot of posters have said I don't speak like that but I know people who do but if you don't agree with people speaking like that then, call them on it because otherwise it will never change.

I just want to add in - I don't think the texts should have been made public but they have been and now, it's about damage control by the IRFU to protect the brand.

Fair play to Jackson for releasing an apology. It was the right thing to do and possibly instigated by the IRFU in respect of their review.
I don't know anything about rugby but I certainly wouldn't agree with any of the players involved being completely dropped off whatever team(s) they play for.

Grayson wrote: »

This reminded me of this speech. After sexism was uncovered in the australian army a general made this speech. One of the most important bits is where he says the standards you walk by are the standards you accept.

As individuals we have to adopt a zero tolerance approach to that sort of behaviour. If someone calls women sluts we should say in no uncertain terms that the language they're using is unacceptable and that they are being disgusting. The same goes for any form of sexism or racism.

Great so what’s you message to the folks walking around Dublin with men are scum posters this week?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So Jackson has now apologised for the content of the WhatsApp.
Is he allowed redemption or does that not apply to those who slight 'womankind'?

I think it is fairly evident here that they are all doing enough so that sponsors and Ulster rugby can respond.
A bit of moralising from both(UR and sponsors) maybe a further suspension and the boys will line out again and we will all move on, I'd imagine.

So you don't think the apology is genuine?

#sorted.

Bacchus wrote: »

That just sounds like they are sorry they were caught... not sorry for how they acted.

"a jokey bit of male banter" plays down the content of the messages they sent and you're kinda tarring all "male banter" with the same brush there.

It is beyond doubt that they are sorry they were caught. Who would like their private conversations, emails, thoughts paraded in this way?

Most boys, young men mature out of these kind of activities and conversations. Not to mention young women.

To define them for life for the spontaneous actions on a drunken night out and the following morning is absolutely inhuman IMO.

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I think this guy might be better accepting that whats done is done and maybe a different career is in order.

The comments like those made in the texts will be made by others in other situations. Trials and their outcomes wont change that for thousands of people.
Some men will still speak in such a way about women and some women will speak that way about men.
No amount of education will change that.
These online groups have just revealed how incredibly stupid the vast majority of the human race is when allowed to express whatever thoughts are in their head.

One of the biggest changes I can see is all men/women deleting group chats/messages that involves anything that might cause issues.

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I think this guy might be better accepting that whats done is done and maybe a different career is in order.

Is the logic here not that he is unfit to do any job?

Why would you let somebody so evil serve you in McDonald's for instance? What difference does it make what he does?


Such nonsense really.

Fann Linn wrote: »

Taliban

I suspect the mob mentality has stretched to 'we will take any win we can' from this.

If he is evil enough and beyond redemption enough to have his rugby career ended, he should not be working in any job.

Grayson wrote: »

No-one went after these people because they are high profile. We only heard of them because of their profile. No-one is going to go after what you or I have in whats app messages because no-one has ever heard of us and our messages are of no interest to anyone. However, no-one is going after them because they're famous. It's just that because they are famous we have heard of it.

You have ten times more clowns saying that they only got off because of their privileged backgrounds.

Grayson wrote: »

No-one went after these people because they are high profile. We only heard of them because of their profile. No-one is going to go after what you or I have in whats app messages because no-one has ever heard of us and our messages are of no interest to anyone. However, no-one is going after them because they're famous. It's just that because they are famous we have heard of it.

No idea what your point is there.

They refer to women as sluts because they are women. When the men are referred to as assholes it's because of their actions.

It's like the difference between me calling someone an idiot because of something stupid they did and calling someone a fcuking stupid paddy because they are Irish.

That's a very simple description of discrimination, racism sexism etc. When name calling occurs because of something someone does it's one thing. When it happens because of who/what they are it's wrong.

A 'slut' means a promiscuous woman - who exist, just like promiscuous men exist, commonly known as 'horndogs'. It does not mean ' all women are promiscuous'.

Grayson wrote: »

This reminded me of this speech. After sexism was uncovered in the australian army a general made this speech. One of the most important bits is where he says the standards you walk by are the standards you accept.

As individuals we have to adopt a zero tolerance approach to that sort of behaviour. If someone calls women sluts we should say in no uncertain terms that the language they're using is unacceptable and that they are being disgusting. The same goes for any form of sexism or racism.

So the complainant is also being disgusting in that case?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That’s beyond cruel. He’s not evil or anything close to it. He’s an young man who made a genuine mistake.

He doesn’t deserve to have the rest of his life defined by one drunken incident that occurred when he was young and which was shown not have been anything other than a misunderstanding.

It doesn't matter Audrey, the mob has to have it's blood sacrifice.