Reports Patrick Kane is under police investigation.

[Goal:thecup]

No, they know it's illegal but they still think it's okay because they hold sexist and misogynist ideas that in their minds mean women "deserve" it. And constantly listing all of the supposed things women should do to "avoid" rape only perpetuates that belief, inviting them to believe that any woman who doesn't prevent them from raping her "asked for it". That is why we have the video of the frat boys proudly marching around a US college campus chanting, "No means yes. Yes means anal."

Stomping your feet and ignorantly denying it will not change the fact that telling women what we should do is just the flip side of the same coin as victim blaming. If a woman is told she should do "this" to prevent being assaulted, by the nature of language and human understanding, at least some people will think it is her fault if she didn't do "this" and is assaulted. Distancing yourself from the mere time shift does not change the fact that when you say a woman "should" do this she will be blamed by the people who believe she "should have".

And it doesn't even help us. Prescribing "preventative measures" perpetuates the lie that women can make ourselves safe, that if we just never get drunk, never dress sexy, never go out alone, never go out at night at all, never allow ourselves to be alone with any man we don't want to have sex with, and limit ourselves in so many others horribly unfair and restrictive ways that we will will not raped. THAT IS A LIE.

By definition of the word "preventative" those measures must be able to keep women from being raped, but they don't. Rape exists everywhere, including in countries where women are mandated by law to be covered from head to toe and are not even allowed to be alone with men who are not close male relatives. Those women are mandated by law to follow your "preventative measures" and yet rape still happens. A 70-year-old woman was just sexually assaulted in her home in South Surrey. I'll bet she's spent much of her life following your "common sense preventative measures" and for what? Her life was limited, she missed out on things she might have wanted to do and she ended up being assaulted anyway as a 70-year-old woman!

Rape has nothing to with women's behavior!!! Rapists commit rape because they want to. It makes them feel powerful. Yes, they may target women they feel are the "most convenient" but that will remain the case no matter what women do. If every woman actually did follow all of these rules and restrictions we'd all be inconvenienced and lessened while rapists would still just find women to target based on some other criteria. Nothing would change. Know how I know? Because HISTORY. Rape wasn't invented the morning after the first drunken hookup. Your preventative measures don't prevent anything because they never caused rape to begin with. Even in the best case scenario, they merely help women sidestep being a victim herself while the would-be rapist simply moves on to target another woman. No rape was actually prevented.

It's ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst, to compare the way we treat sexual assault victims with victims of home robberies. If you want a comparable analogy it would be the way men are told don't go out and get drunk at bars, don't talk to strangers on the street, etc. in order to minimize your risk of being assaulted or murdered. Well, it would be a comparable analogy if this idea of "common sense preventative measure" weren't restricted to women alone.

So instead, here's an actually comparable analogy: We know that drunk and high drivers kill people. We do not, however, tell sober people not to drive or cross a street in order to "minimize their risk" of being killed by a drunk or high driver. Rather, we have campaigns to target the drunk and high drivers themselves, to change the attitude toward a behavior that is illegal but far too many still believe is okay in hopes of reducing the number of people who drive drunk or high. We can change attitudes and that can change behavior, but only if it's the perpetrator's behavior that we target and not the victim's.

While I find your posts informative and intelligent, I cannot understand what it is you want.

Do you want to tell all men to be careful and whatnot, the same as people tend to advise women to be careful?

Civilized society is an attempt to create justice and rules in order to enjoy our lives and property without causing harm to others.

So we have rules and laws that we agree to uphold and then can take our place in our self-devised and self-accepted civilized society.

It has been a long and arduous road to develop this set of laws and the system of justice that attempts to deliver equity and safety within the system.

Rapists and other lawbreakers are outside this system; to place law-abiding members of society in the same genre is unfair.

Many people think it is acceptable and even just punishment for male prisoners to be raped in jail; especially if they do not like the crime that prisoner has committed.

But we have come further than that, in thought but perhaps not in deed, and it is a common joke e.g. "to drop the soap" and "it also is not the dropping of the soap, but the picking it up".

This, for some inexplicable reason to me at least, is acceptable conversation, but actually is completely barbaric, regardless of the crime.

For instance, many people will say something along the lines of, "just leave that pederast in a cell full of the fathers of the victims and "he" will get what's coming to him", as if this is acceptable.

It is not, of course, and usually just "macho" nonsense although women are not excluded from this primitive understanding of justice and the making of these ignorant comments.

It is difficult as the parent of a victim, or the boyfriend of a raped girlfriend in my case, to bury the impulse to kick the &^@#er's head in.

And I did not, admonish her to be more careful or any of that rot.

There are no easy restorative measures to be taken.

Ignorance does not help.

The science is there, I believe, to spot tendencies in children, and work with them to help correct their problems before they manifest themselves in these horrible results.

This is not a matter of telling people what to do, nor what the law is, although that helps; it is recognizing that these perpetrators are patients in need of care, and the earlier they get care, the better.

Men telling women, women telling men, to be careful has little to do with anything, in my opinion.

When these entitled twits march with their foolish slogans, there were many educated people in their lives that have seen signs preceding this instance of bad behaviour and they abided it.

Same with Patrick Kane, many people in his life have ignored warning signs because of his prowess on the ice.

Great athletes are the most entitled, pampered, sheltered, et cetera people that we are likely to meet.

No man that grew up learning to work hard, to pull his weight, to respect others, to try to make the world a better place for all, would have treated that cabby in that miserable fashion.

And if that wasn't a warning sign that he needed help, I do not know what would be.

Surely there were many earlier signs that went unaddressed, many of which probably because he was so darn good at hockey.

I did not know your gender until this topic came up on this forum, I am a dinosaur and assumed you were a man because you have great hockey insight or sense.

I know I am not fully-developed and not a modern, politically-correct, urbanite.

But I am educated and experienced yet still cannot understand what you are getting at with this, "tell men what to do" thing.

We all, men and women, try to protect our own, and advise our kids to stay out of trouble and wear responsible clothing and stay away from bad people and bad situations.

But that is before something horrible has happened; this is all preventative advice.

A person does not lead a more fulfilling life because they indulge in foolish behaviour per se.

They do however, feel a thrill for getting away unscathed after tempting fate.

As elders and parents and teachers and coaches etc., we are obligated to impart our experience to the benefit of the young.

This is not, "telling women what to do", is it?

Why do you feel the need to, "tell men what to do"?

I just don't get it.

It is a dangerous world out there, and we protect our children, and everyone in our society as best we can.

Nobody wants the bloody Taliban.

These spoilt brats parading their sexist violence should be taken to task, called into court, and treated as the sick people they are.

The teachers and coaches and parents of these people should also be taken to task, their behaviour questioned, and any turning a blind eye, encouragement, etc. should also be addressed.

By vigilance and constant correction we can continue to develop this system we have agreed to live under.

What is it you want?

[ManUtd]

Well here is one right back atacha

When someone breaks into a house is the first thing you do is chastise them that they may have left the door unlocked? Maybe had a delevery of expensive goods during daytime when others could see what they got? Do you suggest they stay home at late hours every night to ensure no one ever comes in?

No?

Guess what rape victims have to go through...

Why do you suppose that is?

While I'm 100% on the same side as you on this issue, stuff like that totally happens. My friend forgot her purse on the front seat of her car once. She came back a couple hours later to find her windows smashed and her purse gone. When the cops came they took the report but had the attitude that she was an idiot for leaving it in there and what did she expect to have happen. So lets not pretend that other crime victims don't get questioned or chastised for their actions.

[poetica]

This isn't a good analogy. We can't quantify when people will drive drunk or high, but I do know that it will happen at the much higher frequency on Dec 31/Jan 1. So telling people to stay of the road then if possible is perfectly acceptable. If someone gets into an accident on the night it's still not their fault, but it is more likely to happen then.

It is a perfect analogy for how we address the issue of a behavior we want to alter by focusing on the people exhibiting that behavior rather than potential victims of their crimes.

And we can't quantify when rape will happen either. Rape happens to women, children, and men in homes, in schools, in prisons, and in the streets. It happens at night and during the day. In fact, despite the common misconception that "4am" is a particularly dangerous time, around half of all rapes against women happen during the day. And again, current or former partners are the most likely to rape women, not strangers. So pretending that you can prescribe rules to prevent rape that apply to women alone and presume that women are only raped at night by strangers is wrong and unhelpful.

[poetica]

While I find your posts informative and intelligent, I cannot understand what it is you want.

Do you want to tell all men to be careful and whatnot, the same as people tend to advise women to be careful?

Civilized society is an attempt to create justice and rules in order to enjoy our lives and property without causing harm to others.

So we have rules and laws that we agree to uphold and then can take our place in our self-devised and self-accepted civilized society.

It has been a long and arduous road to develop this set of laws and the system of justice that attempts to deliver equity and safety within the system.

Rapists and other lawbreakers are outside this system; to place law-abiding members of society in the same genre is unfair.

...

By vigilance and constant correction we can continue to develop this system we have agreed to live under.

What is it you want?

No, I don't want men to have their lives to be as restricted as women's. I merely want people to see that we accept the risk to men's lives without forcing them to be less than they are, to not do the legal things they want to do for no reason other than fear of being a victim. Women are be entitled to that same freedom.

What I want is for everyone to say, "It is not okay to rape. Not now, not then, not ever. Under no circumstances." I want people to stop saying, "Women shouldn't do this or that." because I know the real world effect it has. Even if the people saying it genuinely don't mean it be victim blaming it ends up being just that anyway. Even victims themselves report often internalizing that blame and feeling guilty because they "failed" to follow the advice. Many victims who don't report don't report specifically because they fear being asked if they followed those "rules" and blamed if they didn't, or if they didn't enough.

I want everyone to be able to live without fear of violence of any kind and I want us all to work together towards that goal. And in the meantime, I want everyone to be free to live their lives. Risk is inherent to life and we cannot get away from it. We manage to live with almost all forms of risk without significantly altering our every day lives to supposedly prevent something that may never happen, or only to find out that those very "precautions" didn't prevent it after all. Women should not be held to a higher standard when it comes to sexual assault than anyone else is in almost any other situation. It's unfair, it's unhelpful, and it's sexist.

.... And with that, I'm done shouting at the deaf. I've said the same things more times than I can count. The people who get it get it. The people who don't don't want to. They will just continue to be a part of the problem by offering a illusionary "solution."

[Alflives]

I think we all need to accept that in every society, even ours - which we value so highly, there will be criminals. IMHO it does a disservice to our children to not educate them as such, and therefore, to be careful.

[BoKnows]

Not sure if this was already said but EA has removed Kane from the cover of NHL 16 due to the on going investigations.

EA Sports dropped Chicago Blackhawks star Patrick Kane from promoting and appearing on the cover of its NHL 16 video game because he is under police investigation.

The popular video game company announced its decision on its Twitter account Wednesday.

“In light of the ongoing investigation involving Patrick Kane, he will no longer be a spokesperson for the launch of EA Sports NHL 16,” the company said. “He will not appear on the EA Sports NHL 16 cover nor participate in other EA Sports NHL 16 promotional activities.”

Kane was to appear alongside Blackhawks captain Jonathan Toews, in what was supposed to be the first time two NHL players have been featured on the cover. In June, the two stars were key players in leading the Blackhawks to their third Stanley Cup championship in six years.

Kane’s lawyer, Paul Cambria, and agent, Pat Brisson, did not return messages seeking comment.

EA Sports’ decision comes less than a week after Hamburg police announced Kane is under investigation for something that may have happened at the player’s off-season home outside Buffalo on Aug. 2.

Police Chief Gregory Wickett would only say that police are gathering information and awaiting forensic results.

Police are looking into something that happened between Kane and a woman in her 20s, a person familiar with the investigation said earlier this week on condition of anonymity because authorities have not revealed that detail.

It’s unclear how much Kane was to be paid for promoting NHL 16.

Kane also has a sponsorship commitment with Bauer Hockey Equipment, according to the company’s website.

The EA Sports website on Wednesday still featured a photo of Kane and Toews together. However, EA Sports NHL’s Twitter account featured a picture of just Toews.

[BoKnows]

New Cover

[GLASSJAW]

You seem to be confusing generic advice with gender specific restrictions. If you tell your girlfriend or a friend not to walk down a particular street because it's rough, that's just advice. If you tell your girlfriend not to walk alone because she's a woman, that's gendered. If you tell your girlfriend or friend to avoid a particular street because muggings are going on there, that's advice. If they get mugged on that street and you tell them it's their fault for not avoiding that street, that's victim blaming.

The difference in my example is that I am restricting someone through advice, and your example is a man saying to a woman that she is literally not allowed to go outside because it's dark out. Okay, I see the difference now -- but I will add that I have never, not once in my entire life, witnessed or heard of this happening. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it just doesn't reflect my experience at all - at least I can sleep easy knowing I am not complicit or something. And speaking of different experiences...

So if this "You just have to be realistic" attitude were actually based in reality, it would be men who are told not to go out alone, not to get drunk, to avoid strangers on the street, etc. But it's not, is it? No, because reality has nothing to do with it.

...I will shamefully admit that when I leave my close friends' place, leave my mom's place, leave my brother's place, I am instructed to send a text message when I arrive home to make sure I'm safe. I ask the same of them quite often too. I am almost always told to be careful, and I've had numerous cabs called for me because I was drunk. for the record, I am a full grown, adult-ass man. I have no idea what sort of crowds you run with, but your ideas about what men are or are not told do not seem applicable to what I experience in my day-to-day life. As a child, this is was no different - except very few of my male friends were allowed to do much of anything unless there was a group of us.

But surely you see that seeking to avoid risk should be a personal choice

obviously...

If you think "common sense" is gendered you misunderstand the definition of "common."

i think "common" is the uninteresting term and I couldn't care less about it, since it's obviously culturally relative and exclusive to certain groups, inclusive to others. the important words are EVERYTHING IS GENDERED. this is critical theory 101. didn't turbo feminist Judith Butler ride Foucault's idea of cultural inscription all the way to Berkeley using this idea of gendered inscription (from birth)?

You are assuming that most criminals, and in this case rapists and domestic abusers, are lacking impulse control and the mental ability to understand the wrongness of their actions. That rational might make you feel better but it is not backed up by research.

You are also wrong in assuming that my previous post in any way implied that criminals are unaware of their actions. I do not subscribe to the "accidental rapist" theory and I certainly do not subscribe to the theory you seem to be proposing of lawlessness where we have no standards by which to determine a person's culpability. That is not the world we live in. We determine who is and is not responsible all the time. It's the very basis of the criminal justice system.

You seem to be thinking of this as an individual problem, it's not. It's a cultural problem. And, like many other cultural problems, only when we tackle it together and have enough voices to say, "That is not okay!" will attitudes and behaviors change. It's not just about educating individuals, it's about changing the culture that makes people feel entitled to certain behaviors, certain that they'll get away with it because "she was probably asking for it anyway."

This is pure ideology and I have no idea what these words even mean, especially since you were talking about "we" and "us" in the same context as places like Egypt and Afghanistan -- places I honestly couldn't care less about, or know anything about (and therefore withdraw myself from any 'we' involved with it).

So whose culture are we talking about here? ALL culture? Culture, period? How do you even define culture and differentiate it from the will of individuals? is culture sanctioned and supported? is individual will and action what determines culture, or is culture something that exists beyond the individuals who make it up? like, what do you even mean by culture, and how are you using that as something outside of individual choice? OBVIOUSLY some cultures normalize rape or sexual violence more than others - but does any culture actually escape sexual violence or crime? does CULTURE normalize or trivialize rape, or do individuals? do institutions do it, or is it a shared cultural acceptance, etc.?

I think you and I just differ on a philosophical level. I mean, morally I agree with almost everything (or maybe everything) you're saying, I just end up shrugging and wondering why I care? I firmly believe in the absolute randomness of life and existence, and the responsibility that comes with it as an individual. so no, none of this "makes me feel better" because none of this gets me down. I do my part, and I try not to be complicit in something--ideological or practical--that does not jive with the beliefs I have spent an awful lot of money to be properly informed.

but anyway, I am not at all assuming that criminals are not understanding of consequences or saying they lack the mental ability to see right from wrong. I'm saying I have no faith in the idea of social cohesion, period. i'm all for rape shaming and education. what do I care? it's not for people like me. I just don't invest a lot of faith in disrupting power struggles, equality, or any of that.

I said: at what point do we know when a person "gets it" or not? at what point is an individual educated enough? how do we know if someone knows what rape or violence is? how do we determine who is or isn't responsible?

to which you respond by saying that standards of culpability and responsibility are enforced by the criminal justice system. yes, this system exists, obviously, but it exists as a deterrent at best, and a reactionary system at worst. we both know that it does not actually prevent rape. minimize it, maybe. stop it? no. and if rape is indeed a cultural problem, then no, the criminal justice system does not necessarily influence or even address the decisions of the individual at all, since rape is very much stigmatized in North America, Sweden, etc., and yet the cultural "normalization" of rape or sexual violence still thrives (according to feminist ideology). the best thing the criminal justice system can do is sometimes find the guilty members guilty of certain acts, but it has no say in cultural perpetuation or the desires or actions of the individuals until after the individual has acted. again, this is a just a philosophical position. again x2, Foucault talks all about it in Discipline and Punish, and it goes back to The Leviathan as well - what is the role of the justice system? how does the individual act without that justice system present? etc. in my opinion, it is not pretty.

regardless of the justice system, you say "It's not just about educating individuals, it's about changing the culture that makes people feel entitled to certain behaviors" -- to which I respond: good luck! despite my cynical world view, i do believe social progress is inevitable. but i certainly don't think this will stop sexual violence, i don't think it will stop crime, power struggles, subjugation, or any of that

[Hairy Kneel]

The players union should make intervention teams and target players at risk, or identified as severely needing D and A counselling.

[GLASSJAW]

A situation where someone leaves a public with a celebrity is a lot safer than leaving with a random anonymous person.

depends on the celebrity.

[literaphile]

So instead, here's an actually comparable analogy: We know that drunk and high drivers kill people. We do not, however, tell sober people not to drive or cross a street in order to "minimize their risk" of being killed by a drunk or high driver. Rather, we have campaigns to target the drunk and high drivers themselves, to change the attitude toward a behavior that is illegal but far too many still believe is okay in hopes of reducing the number of people who drive drunk or high. We can change attitudes and that can change behavior, but only if it's the perpetrator's behavior that we target and not the victim's.

.... sigh. No, a comparative analogy is reminding people to drive defensively because there are dangerous drivers out there (whether they're drunk, distracted, driving without a license, etc.). Reminding people to drive defensively is NOT the same as blaming them for getting hit by a drunk driver. To argue as such is just putting up a massive straw man.

It comes down to this: you can only control one person: you. You can tell rapists not to rape, murderers not to murder, and thieves not to steal. Let's use stealing as an example to: you can say to a thief that "stealing is wrong" until you're blue in the face. You can show them evidence of how thief isn't a victimless crime. You can present logical arguments. But, either the thief knows that stealing is wrong and doesn't care, or the thief rationalizes the stealing. In either case, the thief doesn't care what you tell him and you can't control what the thief does. So, if you want to protect yourself, it is up to one person - you - to do so.

Taking measures to protect yourself is not blame shifting. It's just smart.

[RonMexico]

Man this forensic evidence needs to be completed soon so this thread can go in a new direction. Right now, the discussion in here really sucks.

[wtpasc]

No, they know it's illegal but they still think it's okay because they hold sexist and misogynist ideas that in their minds mean women "deserve" it. And constantly listing all of the supposed things women should do to "avoid" rape only perpetuates that belief, inviting them to believe that any woman who doesn't prevent them from raping her "asked for it". That is why we have the video of the frat boys proudly marching around a US college campus chanting, "No means yes. Yes means anal."

Stomping your feet and ignorantly denying it will not change the fact that telling women what we should do is just the flip side of the same coin as victim blaming. If a woman is told she should do "this" to prevent being assaulted, by the nature of language and human understanding, at least some people will think it is her fault if she didn't do "this" and is assaulted. Distancing yourself from the mere time shift does not change the fact that when you say a woman "should" do this she will be blamed by the people who believe she "should have".

And it doesn't even help us. Prescribing "preventative measures" perpetuates the lie that women can make ourselves safe, that if we just never get drunk, never dress sexy, never go out alone, never go out at night at all, never allow ourselves to be alone with any man we don't want to have sex with, and limit ourselves in so many others horribly unfair and restrictive ways that we will will not raped. THAT IS A LIE.

By definition of the word "preventative" those measures must be able to keep women from being raped, but they don't. Rape exists everywhere, including in countries where women are mandated by law to be covered from head to toe and are not even allowed to be alone with men who are not close male relatives. Those women are mandated by law to follow your "preventative measures" and yet rape still happens. A 70-year-old woman was just sexually assaulted in her home in South Surrey. I'll bet she's spent much of her life following your "common sense preventative measures" and for what? Her life was limited, she missed out on things she might have wanted to do and she ended up being assaulted anyway as a 70-year-old woman!

Rape has nothing to with women's behavior!!! Rapists commit rape because they want to. It makes them feel powerful. Yes, they may target women they feel are the "most convenient" but that will remain the case no matter what women do. If every woman actually did follow all of these rules and restrictions we'd all be inconvenienced and lessened while rapists would still just find women to target based on some other criteria. Nothing would change. Know how I know? Because HISTORY. Rape wasn't invented the morning after the first drunken hookup. Your preventative measures don't prevent anything because they never caused rape to begin with. Even in the best case scenario, they merely help women sidestep being a victim herself while the would-be rapist simply moves on to target another woman. No rape was actually prevented.

It's ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst, to compare the way we treat sexual assault victims with victims of home robberies. If you want a comparable analogy it would be the way men are told don't go out and get drunk at bars, don't talk to strangers on the street, etc. in order to minimize your risk of being assaulted or murdered. Well, it would be a comparable analogy if this idea of "common sense preventative measure" weren't restricted to women alone.

So instead, here's an actually comparable analogy: We know that drunk and high drivers kill people. We do not, however, tell sober people not to drive or cross a street in order to "minimize their risk" of being killed by a drunk or high driver. Rather, we have campaigns to target the drunk and high drivers themselves, to change the attitude toward a behavior that is illegal but far too many still believe is okay in hopes of reducing the number of people who drive drunk or high. We can change attitudes and that can change behavior, but only if it's the perpetrator's behavior that we target and not the victim's.

Well said again

[Neversummer]

.... sigh. No, a comparative analogy is reminding people to drive defensively because there are dangerous drivers out there (whether they're drunk, distracted, driving without a license, etc.). Reminding people to drive defensively is NOT the same as blaming them for getting hit by a drunk driver. To argue as such is just putting up a massive straw man.

Taking measures to protect yourself is not blame shifting. It's just smart.

This ... x100

Don't know how you can argue and debate this any further ... common sense.

[Chalky]

depends on the celebrity.

Too true, but in general I stand by the statement. This thread still sucks though, if no one is willing to concede any part of their position through rational debate, then there is no point in debating.

[R3aL]

Guilty until proven innocent? or Innocent untill proven guilty?

Either way the hockey world to Kane:

[GLASSJAW]

Afreakenmen

That is 100%

Thanks for educating the ignorant and those who think black and white, even one post can start the revolution.

Well said ... +1

Finally, someone who has common sense, not live in a black and white world, and can hold more than one truth at a time.

Thank you ... good to see that there are other reasonable people out there.

Thank you for another voice of reason and common sense. Best argument yet, wish I was smart enough to come up with it.

This ... x100

Don't know how you can argue and debate this any further ... common sense.

with all due respect, Neversummer, you are totally entitled to have whatever views you want on whatever subject. but your contribution to this conversation seemed antagonistic at best. your constant implications (yet total lack of backing-up) that poetica, or whoever else, lacks the ability to reason or think clearly is kinda nuts. you said my post to her was me "educating the ignorant" but that was not at all the aim of my post - why be so aggressive about it?

you should straight up apologize to those you disagree with, imo.

the worst thing about CDC is how everyone on here argues the same point, day in day out, and nobody ever seems to grow from it. prejudices stay prejudices, and everyone just keeps calling everyone else illogical or irrational. frankly, i don't think many people on this website even know what either of those words mean. how is it possible that rationality and logic have so many contradictory interpretations? hmm!

[Realtor Rod]

Again, I'm not blaming them for doing it given the circumstances. I just think that the circumstances are ridiculous.

People see Kane was accused, immediately think he's guilty due to that, then companies involved with him have to drop him to avoid the PR mess. Even though Kane may not have even done anything wrong, he is already being punished due to misguided public opinion. And I find that ridiculous.

Not accused, being investigated. That is a big difference. I can accuse you of being a pedophile which means nothing, but if you are being investigated by the authorities for being a pedophile, that's different. It isn't semantics.

[Realtor Rod]

Double post

[Realtor Rod]

New Cover

Is that real? If so, that's awesome.