quote:This is not what I think, and I'm pretty sure not what I said. If you got that from what I said then perhaps you're projecting or assuming, but no matter where you got this idea, it is not what I think or have said.
I explained exactly why I thought what you were saying sounded like (I was quite clear that you didn't say it specifically) 'women need to be taught how to be aware of danger, perhaps by men'. I'm not sure if that's what you actually think or not.
I am much less unsure that that's what it sounds like you think, if that makes sense, for the reasons I explained: women being smaller and weaker, women being intrinsically worse at sensing danger, women being intrinsically worse at awareness of surroundings-these are things you've said that add up, to me, to a message that sounds like, "Women need to be taught how to be aware of danger around them." That part seems almost like a slam dunk in the 'sounds-like' category from what you've been saying. The 'taught by a man' is a bit of an extension, since according to what you've been saying, who would teach women to do these things? Another woman?
I'm specifically not saying you're a sexist. I'm asking you to consider that you're saying things that, well, sound pretty sexist which is different, and I'm explaining in detail why.
quote:Why would I tell stories of things to disprove my point? That is silly. You don't like my conclusion so you are doubting my perceptions is highly insulting. The story of my mother was an extreme one, to help make a contested point, the same is true of the farmer's market, but involved multiple strangers as you again called my perceptions into question, suggesting that my judgment might be clouded by my close relationships.
Actually, I said I am starting to doubt your perceptions. Why? Because you're using anecdotes to prove a sweeping judgment against a gender, and in these anecdotes the gender you're criticizing (and to be clear, this is in fact what you're doing, even if you don't feel it's what you're doing) are always present and always the transgressors. I can't help but think you might be cherry-picking. The story of your mother doesn't actually make the contested point at all, unless we're going to credit extreme outliers one way or another.
I could just as easily go forth and find a female teacher of a self-defense class and describe her attitude towards self-defense and say, "See? Women are aware of situations." That is why telling stories to prove one's point is an incomplete way to wage an argument. Put another way, I'm beginning to have trouble believing you're as unbiased as you claim to be because in all of the anecdotes you're using in this thread - all of `em - women have been shades of unaware.
Do you see why that's a problem?
quote:Proportion = mixed, couples/singles/groups, male/female, young/old, it was pretty diverse. Why? They were shopping, eating, talking, daydreaming, is it really important why someone is not paying attention and wonders into strangers? Is it pertinent, I'd say yes, or else I would not have brought it up. How confident, very. There were times that day that other missteps happened that were not as one sided, where I either had equal blame or more, but never did I just turn off my radar and expect people to make way for me as the people in my example did to me and others.
Well, first of all I'd wonder at how accurate your confidence is in your from-the-hip demographic assessment of the farmer's market population. That's not a shot, by the way, Stone_Wolf. I'd be wary of anyone, including myself, claiming they had an accurate read on the gender, age, ethnicity, etc., makeup of a group just from a casual interaction where they weren't actively attempting to get that information. Second, yes, obviously it matters what these people were doing when they nearly blundered into you for the purposes of this argument. One's danger senses and situational awareness are not going to be as keyed up in an environment as likely to be safe as a farmer's market. For example, do you know what the conversations they were having were about?
Bottom line is, there are so many variables you've got to fill in before you arrive at the sweeping gender indictment that you've arrived at on the basis of casual anecdotal evidence. And they didn't just 'turn off their radar', either. If they did, they would be constantly running into people, 100% of the time. There would be a huge racket-I'm afraid you're exaggerating.
quote: Men and women are different, to try and set up systems otherwise is ludicrous. We have different interests, different needs, different size clothing and styles. Is it sexist for Lifetime network to have their slogan (until recently) be "Television for women"? You can not possibly be calling for the uni-gendering of all, right?
Alright, so you take 'equal' to mean 'identical'. I don't. Personally I think that's a bit of a red herring when it comes to social questions, but that's a very big question and pretty far flung from this discussion. Anyway, no, obviously I'm not calling for 'uni-gendering', whatever that means. You'll have to pardon me for raising my figurative eyebrows when someone says, "Men and women should be considered equal in most things."
quote:I see no flaw in my reasoning but a huge glaring one in yours. The more you make the law abiding citizens sheep, the more wolves will eat. Let us say for the sake of argument, you are a violent, raping robbing murdering son of bi**h, and "we have been teaching our population to be less violent", do think it will be hard to find a victim? Or if you know for a fact that almost everyone is carrying pepper spray, a gun, a knife, or a tazer as well as at least a year of training in self defense...
The ideas I described don't 'make law abiding citizens sheep', though that's a handy mischaracterization. For the sake of argument, though, if I'm a violent, raping, etc., do you really imagine that I'm just going to, say, 'top out' at the equivalent level of violence-training as everyone else in society? Or because I like violence, am I going to become even better at it, and likewise better armed with better and more dangerous weapons?
In societies where guns are strictly controlled, criminals almost never carry guns-they carry other kinds of weapons. In societies like ours where machine guns are strictly controlled, criminals rarely carry machine guns, they carry other kinds of guns. My argument has the benefit of looking to actual societies in place on Earth today and in the past and seeing how they work, whereas yours shoots from the hip with what feels natural from the gut and says, "That makes sense."
quote: How about you are a ham fisted, bull headed wife beating son of a gun...and you know that your neighbors aren't trained and are afraid of you...or your neighbors, wife, children and everyone else is trained, so fear isn't holding them back. In which scenario are you more likely to get away with it?
You know what's vastly more effective at preventing domestic violence than training our entire population to be better at violence as a whole? Thoroughly training our population that domestic violence is absolutely unacceptable for any reason, and that victims should leave at the first instance, even some of the first warning signs, and have social programs in place to help with those goals. I mean seriously.
quote:That would suck, but that is why I said a brief time for a secondary investigation. If mistakes are made, then I'm sorry, you died for a good cause.
What, making you feel better? That's not a good cause at all. Sating your emotional lust for vengeance, especially when it's a second-hand lust for vengeance, isn't remotely a good cause. Particularly when it might not even work. But I guess we should start killing people as an experiment?
quote:No, ask a rape victom if they are ever the same again. The person they were is now dead forever, and the person they have become will always be haunted by ghosts, always carry scars. And to tell you the truth I don't give a flying fiery crap about "punishment exceeds the crime" when it comes to this. As a group society has the right to protect itself, and once you prove that you are a danger, the ONLY way to 100.00% guarantee that you will never do it again is to kill you.
Society does have a right to protect itself. That right isn't absolutely limitless, though. Sorry man, it just ain't. And, y'know, I'm not going to tell a rape victim how they should feel about their crime. Some, many, perhaps even most would feel about it the way you do, and I wouldn't criticize them for it-that's a very natural response. But I wonder if some others might not object to the notion that they are forever marked by what happened to them as you're suggesting.
And you know, I'm tired of this suggestion of 'the only way to 100% protect ourselves is to kill'. It's just inaccurate. Our prisons aren't sieves. We're pretty good at buildin' `em, and when we decide to stuff someone in there, they almost always - and I mean take it to the freakin' bank and play Russian Roulette in complete safety odds - stay there. So no, that argument doesn't wash. It has a lot more to do with you just wanting to kill them. Let's just be clear about that.
quote:You still would have to be charged with that particular crime (instead of say, a lesser count of manslaughter) and proved guilty in a court of law. As a deterrent to others, zero tolerance is awesome. As a deterrent to repeat offenders, it is unquestioningly the best!
Do you have any evidence of this, or it is just one of those things that you know is true? We've got lots of zero tolerance laws for drugs-workin' great!
quote:Lets see the numbers, and their sources, those are some very vague statements you are making.
Dude, you've been makin' anecdotal claims to support criticisms of entire genders from the beginning, so you'll have to pardon me for being a bit peeved to hear you complain of 'vagueness'. Anyway, just a wiki, but..... Also bear in mind I'm not just talking about the past 50-60 years, I'm talking about over hundreds of years.
quote:Again, you disagree with my conclusions so you attack me. Uncool.
What's uncool is truncating a statement to criticize someone.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: In societies where guns are strictly controlled, criminals almost never carry guns-they carry other kinds of weapons. In societies like ours where machine guns are strictly controlled, criminals rarely carry machine guns, they carry other kinds of guns.
Just out of curiosity, can you source this?
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a deterrent to others, zero tolerance is awesome. As a deterrent to repeat offenders, it is unquestioningly the best!
Considering how ugly and disreputable zero-tolerance policies worked in schools, I'd have to say that this assumption flies off into the netherworld and expires quietly.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In societies where guns are strictly controlled, criminals almost never carry guns-they carry other kinds of weapons. In societies like ours where machine guns are strictly controlled, criminals rarely carry machine guns, they carry other kinds of guns.
I sincerely doubt that this is true. I'm currently living in a country where gun ownership is very heavily controlled. Despite this, there is a huge amount of gun violence and criminals almost always carry illegal guns rather than legal weapons.
If I remember stats from the US correctly, most crimes are committed using weapons that are illegal for one reason or another.
If you compare murder rates in the US and Canada, you find that US has a much higher rate of murders committed with guns, but the rate of murders committed with other weapons is nearly identical.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could very well be wrong about that-I remember reading it, but looking it up is difficult since it's been awhile. For now I'll take it back. Specifically I was thinking mostly of European nations, Western European nations, and should've said so.
As for the United States, it's my understanding that most crimes are committed using guns that are illegal for one reason or another, but relatively few crimes are committed with guns that are illegal for lots of reasons-that is, illegally produced, sold, transported, and owned guns.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Prison sentences for rape are not uniform. A study made by the U.S. Department of Justice of prison releases in 1992, involving about 80 percent of the prison population, found that the average sentence for convicted rapists was 11.8 years, while the actual time served was 5.4 years.
quote:A 2002 study by the United States Department of Justice indicated that recidivism rates among sex offenders was 5.3%; that is, about 1 in 19 of released sex offenders were later arrested for another sex crime.
Five and half years and more then one in twenty repeats, and "making you feel better?" and "sating your emotional lust for second-hand vengeance" do not really have anything to do with it.
quote:What's uncool is truncating a statement to criticize someone.
I truncated my quotes so I didn't just repost your entire post as a quote. Also, please note I edited my post to say "Again, you disagree with my conclusions so you question my ability. Uncool." because minutes after posting I thought my first statement was unfair.
quote:Second, and I put this delicately, I wonder if your experiences with your mother might have more of an impact on your perception of women in general than you think-that'd hardly be unusual.
quote:you again called my perceptions into question, suggesting that my judgment might be clouded by my close relationships.
quote:Actually, I said I am starting to doubt your perceptions.
"Impact on my perception of women" vs "judgment" This seems like nitpicking to me.
quote:Well, first of all I'd wonder at how accurate your confidence is in your from-the-hip demographic assessment of the farmer's market population. That's not a shot, by the way, Stone_Wolf. I'd be wary of anyone, including myself, claiming they had an accurate read on the gender, age, ethnicity, etc., makeup of a group just from a casual interaction where they weren't actively attempting to get that information.
Seriously, if you doubt any answer I would have given, why did you ask?
quote:My argument has the benefit of looking to actual societies in place on Earth today and in the past and seeing how they work, whereas yours shoots from the hip with what feels natural from the gut and says, "That makes sense."
quote:I could very well be wrong about that-I remember reading it, but looking it up is difficult since it's been awhile. For now I'll take it back. Specifically I was thinking mostly of European nations, Western European nations, and should've said so.
quote:So, five and a half years, yea, that is a sieve.
They're not sieves intrinsically. We choose to make sentencing for rape light, so your solution is to say, "The only way we can protect ourselves from rapists and other criminals is to kill them." That makes no sense. Your claim suggests that violent criminals are escaping from prison, when your real problem is that as a society we've chosen to let them out too soon.
quote:Five and half years and more then one in twenty repeats, and "making you feel better?" and "sating your emotional lust for second-hand vengeance" do not really have anything to do with it.
Yes, it has everything to do with it, because there is another solution that accomplishes precisely the same goal you aim at: life imprisonment. Again, because prisons aren't sieves-we let prisons out of the basically impermeable pot earlier than you (or I, for violent crime) would like. That's different.
quote:I truncated my quotes so I didn't just repost your entire post as a quote. Also, please note I edited my post to say "Again, you disagree with my conclusions so you question my ability. Uncool." because minutes after posting I thought my first statement was unfair.
I didn't see that when I started my post.
quote:Seriously, if you doubt any answer I would have given, why did you ask?
I only started to question your perceptions when it became clear that you were only going to be giving anecdotes that described women in general as less aware of their surroundings and less aware of danger in particular. When it became clear that your experience, apparently, supported a sweeping indictment of an entire gender. I ask the question in an effort to highlight that perhaps you're not as sure as you think you are, but I'm beginning to think that that's an impossible proposition.
quote:I'll let those three quotes speak for themselves.
Mm-hmm. So we're...well, I guess we're not gonna talk about things like a long-term decrease in violent crime when put against a similar long term decrease in violent and draconian punishment-there were sources for that. No letting quotes speak for themselves there, hm? We're also not going to let the part where your entire argument is based on vague statements supported by anecdotes-letting that speak for itself, right?
quote:As a deterrent to others, zero tolerance is awesome. As a deterrent to repeat offenders, it is unquestioningly the best!
Considering how ugly and disreputable zero-tolerance policies worked in schools, I'd have to say that this assumption flies off into the netherworld and expires quietly.
I misspoke, just replace "zero tolerance" in my post with "the death penalty".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you get more than one chance with the death penalty? I'm unclear as to how that's not "zero tolerance".
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing to remember is that prisons are sieves-convicts escape from `em all the time. And the criminal justice system is absolutely infallible, except when it's not, so if an innocent is executed it's OK-they died in a good cause. That good cause being deterrence of further violence crime. Despite the evidence in support of the idea that the death penalty deters violent crime being, shall we say, uncertain.
ETA: Here, I'll mimic your method, Stone_Wolf:
quote:I misspoke, just replace "zero tolerance" in my post with "the death penalty".
I'll let this quote speak for itself. Uncool.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, are they using the death penalty in schools now? Because I have to admit, I'm a bit confused about exactly what your objection is here.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your sarcasm, self righteousness and condescension are all lost on me Rakeesh, I'm too busy firing from the hip and saying that feels right.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The death penalty is a zero tolerance policy similar to how it's often used in schools. One offense and immediate, maximum punishment for certain offenses.
The overall idea being that automatically applying the maximum possible sentence as a mandatory thing for a given set of crimes without taking context into consideration might be a bad idea. The strange* thing is that the people who often suggest it (conservatives) are those who would usually object pretty strongly to that sort of removal of local authority over government affairs.
*It's not actually strange at all.
ETA: Stone_Wolf, if you look back and review you'll see that I was responding (pretty laboriously) point by point to statements you made, and enjoying the discussion-that part is more difficult to tell and a matter of opinion. What's not a matter of opinion is that I was replying to the things you'd said.
I kind of lost interest in that when you decided to start mocking when I said, "Whoops-I made a mistake," and then specifically not replying to parts of my posts while addressing others, especially some that were most problematic to your point of view. So...yeah, actually-you are pretty busy shooting from the hip.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a deterrent to others, zero tolerance is awesome. As a deterrent to repeat offenders, it is unquestioningly the best!
Considering how ugly and disreputable zero-tolerance policies worked in schools, I'd have to say that this assumption flies off into the netherworld and expires quietly.
I misspoke, just replace "zero tolerance" in my post with "the death penalty".
To work 'unquestioningly' as the best deterrant, it has to provide a boost in deterrance which justifies its operating overhead. Otherwise, it's not the best, it's just the most exhaustively prohibitive and expensive.
By a nuanced analysis, you can show that the death penalty is a not-significant quantity of additional deterrance provided for an exorbitant increase in the costs to the system (and by extension, to taxpayers). This is both to the repeat offenders themselves (look at the rates of escape for high security lifers versus total prison populations) and to others who are supposedly dissuaded by capital punishment (since it has consistently been shown that the death penalty does not provide significant deterrance above other penal options).
Not that much of this discussion matters. You may not be cognizant of why, but the whole "I think that anyone who kills, rapes, molests or kidnaps another human being should be killed" idea will be soundly rejected as immoral — for good reasons — and wouldn't pass constitutional review, to boot. You're proposing something which is firmly (and thankfully) in the realm of fantasy.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The weird thing about that was that it was mingled with some other actual decent advice. I was surprised.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I kind of lost interest in that when you decided to start mocking when I said, "Whoops-I made a mistake," and then specifically not replying to parts of my posts while addressing others, especially some that were most problematic to your point of view.
You got snotty first my friend, I actually praised you for your efforts in disagreeing with me.
quote:At least Rakeesh explained his position in detail and was not such a condescending rude person.
Also, I didn't mock you, I pointed out that you were making claims that your info was based on fact, while mine was based on bull, only to then retract the factual part of your statement, without offering any kind of apology for inaccurate and damning comparison.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, I didn't mock you, I pointed out that you were making claims that your info was based on fact, while mine was based on bull, only to then retract the factual part of your statement, without offering any kind of apology for inaccurate and damning comparison.
I retracted some of it. And only a small part. And I didn't say, "Yours was bull," either.
quote:You got snotty first my friend, I actually praised you for your efforts in disagreeing with me.
I'm not even sure what you think is snotty, since in spite of going to pretty substantial lengths to say I didn't think you were talking bull, that's what you're coming at me with.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sorry that this degraded from a discussion to an argument, but truly, we crossed over, so let's leave it at that and move on.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So that means you don't want to discuss the notion that prisons are sieves, that the death penalty would serve as a deterrent, and that women are worse at situational and danger awareness than men?
I do believe you regret that the discussion has turned into an argument. It's a little frustrating, though, that this decision comes when you bring these points up and leave them just sitting there despite several of them being, well, very controversial and uncertain at best and several others being factually wildly inaccurate.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To work 'unquestioningly' as the best deterrant, it has to provide a boost in deterrance which justifies its operating overhead. Otherwise, it's not the best, it's just the most exhaustively prohibitive and expensive.
As long you are including the human costs as part of the operating overhead, I'd agree. The cost of keeping 20 people in prison for life (or executing them) because its likely that 1 will commit a crime, goes far beyond the monetary expense. Punishment is not an effective deterrent for crime unless its perceived by the overwhelming majority as just. A punishment instituted based on the probability of future offenses rather than the severity of the initial offense isn't just.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So that means you don't want to discuss the notion that prisons are sieves, that the death penalty would serve as a deterrent, and that women are worse at situational and danger awareness than men?
I never implied that prisoners escape, I have no idea where you get that. I already addressed situational awareness in a previous post. I am planning on starting a new thread about the death sentence when I have time.
When push comes to shove, I just really have no interest in discussing anything else with you at the moment.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps you should not be basing your arguments on what you don't actually know?
At least Rakeesh explained his position in detail and was not such a condescending rude person. I have no expectation that everyone will agree with me and praise my wonderfully fascinating world view, but golly, you could at least attempt to be nice.
I don't often do detail. I'm concise.
If you wish to dismiss me as rude, that's fine. I've watched you do the same thing with other posters. Keep in mind that 90% of communication is lost via this medium, and just maybe your reading of tone is incorrect.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never implied that prisoners escape, I have no idea where you get that.
You said they're sieves. They're not sieves, they're pots with water in them and we dump the water out on a regular basis-you don't like how often we dump the water out. You didn't imply they escaped, you said the only way to ensure with absolute reliability that violent offenders don't re-offend is to kill them.
That's misleading. We can imprison them with an extremely high level of reliability to the rest of society. Even with a sensationalist media, and even with an incarceration rate that is shall we say pretty high, you don't often hear of prison escapes for people actually incarcerated-for honest-to-goodness jailbreaks. So your point, that jails are sieves so we need to kill, simply doesn't hold.
I know you don't want to discuss anything else with me at the moment. Considering how the discussion is going, the points you're bringing to bear in the discussion and their accuracy, I'm not surprised. Anecdotes don't work so well when you start talking about 'prisons are sieves'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, I never said or implied this "that jails are sieves so we need to kill". You brought sieves up, I answered it.
You said criminals are getting out of prison too often. That was in support of your idea that we need to kill certain criminals so they don't re-offend. That suggests that they're escaping or something, because it leaves out the fact that the reason they're getting out of prison too often (in your opinion, and mine actually, for violent crime) is because we let them out.
Running smack into your notion that we need to kill certain criminals to prevent them from re-offending. That's an example of how something can be misleading while still being true, if we accept for the sake of argument that it's true that violent criminals get out of prison too often.
You have to say why and how they get out of prison too often too early-context.
quote:No, that is factual. I don't understand, it's not like you are even saying "with reasonable reliability".
Again, factual but misleading. For the reasons I described, and you still have yet to address. (Note my complete lack of surprise.)
quote:Also, all the people who they rape and kill in prison still count!
Compassion and concern for residents of prison being a hallmark of your ideology so far, you'll excuse my skepticism that this is an extremely serious motivator for you, but for the sake of argument let's say that it is: do you believe we're incapable as a society of stopping prison violence short of killing?
quote:No, it's snotty little passive aggressive comments like this that cause my entire lack of interest to discuss anything with you.
It's clear you've given yourself a version of this narrative, and you're not going to be shaken from it. I can't speak to your interest in discussing things with me, I can only address how much you actually discussed things with me-and my snarkiness started after your actual participation point-for-point started.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I know-I was just wondering when you'd say it and actually mean it. So far it's been shades of, "Not interested...discuss discuss discuss."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if we go with Stone_Wolf_'s assessment of men going off and doing the hunting elsewhere, nothing in the men's absence guarantees safety for the women.
In fact, I would have thought in this scenario (rather than men and women hunting together as they travelled, an equally valid scenario) women would need more "situational awareness" (whatever that actaully is) in order to assure the safety of the community while the men were away.
All of what you say about women and their poor "situational awareness" runs contrary to my experience of people in general. Different scenarios require different levels of awareness. When I am walking on a street late at night, I am responding differently to stimulus than when I am walking along it in bright sunlight. With children, I am thinking more about the children than other things going on around me.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Even if we go with Stone_Wolf_'s assessment of men going off and doing the hunting elsewhere, nothing in the men's absence guarantees safety for the women.
In fact, I would have thought in this scenario (rather than men and women hunting together as they travelled, an equally valid scenario) women would need more "situational awareness" (whatever that actaully is) in order to assure the safety of the community while the men were away.
For reals.
If I were a predator and that were the setup, I'd be heading for the cosy nest of plush-skinned twitheads bumbling around humming to themselves and walking into walls rather than the fearsome hypervigilant ninjas rappelling off skyhooks with pointy sticks.
posted
Something I recall from history is that giving the maximum punishment allowable, was very effective in deterring misbehavior, for example people who were caught stealing (in certain countries) will have their hands cut off...
So, I'm thinking punishment for rape (proven in court, and of the serious kind, not that 4 years age difference statutory with permission crap) should be a penectomy, or a minimum of 10-years - life in prison (with other rapists, maybe they will get some forced action in there).... ---- 8) Asking for it - pretty broad definition, modern times female clothing has become significantly more revealing (I say sluttier but whatever), clothing I define as asking for it would be -excessive cleavage (boobs/butt/downstairs), very short skirts, and them damn skin tight shorts that have sadly become popular with middle school girls ;-;, another addition would be swim suits are meant for swimming, let's keep it that way Dx , I lack an attraction toward men so having an outline for them is neigh impossible for me.. -- My posts are a mess!
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The vast, overwhelming majority of women who are raped aren't rapes on the basis of their choice in clothing. They're raped because they have (for most rapes) a relationship of some sort with a rapist.
This has been explained to you in straightforward terms anyone paying attention can understand. If you persist in this kind of thinking and posting, there's a solid chance people are going to - rightly - think some very, very nasty things about your attitude about women.
At this point, speaking strictly for myself I *already* think that because your response to someone pointing out how stupid and offensive it is to say scantily clad females are asking for sexual assault was, "You're boring." But there may be folks who are more charitable than I am, or who can see past the surface meaning of that awful statement, to something that isn't stupid, misogynistic, and adolescent. If you're interested in your appearance in their eyes, you *really* ought to reconsider this line of thought.
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: 8) Asking for it - pretty broad definition, modern times female clothing has become significantly more revealing (I say sluttier but whatever), clothing I define as asking for it would be -excessive cleavage (boobs/butt/downstairs), very short skirts, and them damn skin tight shorts that have sadly become popular with middle school girls ;-;, another addition would be swim suits are meant for swimming, let's keep it that way Dx , I lack an attraction toward men so having an outline for them is neigh impossible for me..
So, a store advertising goods in the window is asking to be pillaged?
If you're trying to say that women who dress in revealing outfits should expect men to notice and appreciate, I'd agree with that. To go with the store example, it's a form of advertising.
If you're trying to say that, then you're doing a poor job of getting it across.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: So, a store advertising goods in the window is asking to be pillaged?
What really gets me are all those elderly women using walkers while doing their grocery shopping. Obviously they can't run after you. What, do they expect to leave tempting things like a purse hanging right out there and not be molested?
Seriously asking for it. You can tell what they really want is a good mugging, not a 2-for-1 on Campbell's tomato soup.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
It has been my overwhelming personal experience that women, especially when either on their own or in a single-sex group, are extremely situationally aware, much more so than men in similar circumstances.
However, I will grant you that women in the company of trusted men could easily feel much safer or be more distracted than when they are on their own.
(When I go running, I'm constantly aware of dog walkers, the lengths of the leashes and the potential for leaving in my path, other walkers/runners/cyclists, cars, kids playing basketball, how many bees are pollinating the bushes I'm about to run past and whether I should adjust my path to avoid getting stung, pot holes, the crazy, tilting sidewalks of New Orleans, you name it. Out walking through the French Quarter with my 6'2" Beloved? Do-de-do -- Where did that streetcar come from?!? When we're together, I let him wear the Constant Vigilance hat -- not saying that it's a conscious choice, but I am more relaxed and oblivious when in his company.)
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree 100% with Olivet. Whether or not its reasonable, when I am with my husband I feel safe and so my vigilance drops. Not long ago, two women friends and I walked to a pan yard where we met my husband. On the walk there, I was at full alert aware of every person and car and which way they were going. On the return trip, when my husband was with us, I was pretty oblivious. Some people in a passing car stopped to tell us we were being followed by some shady characters. The two other women and I hadn't noticed, but my husband had and was planning what to do if they came closer. I am fully confident that I would have been aware of the guys following us if my husband had not been with us. You really can't draw any conclusions about how aware women are of their surroundings when they are alone based on how they behave when they are with trusted male companions.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I've been thinking about this. And I have changed my thinking a bit.
First, I looked a bit into hunter/gatherer societies, and you guys were right, and I was wrong. Women hunted with the men. So that point is out the window.
Second, people's awareness of traffic patterns on a bright day in a crowded place, or their danger sense when accompanied by their husband and teenage son are not going to be a good indicator of their behaviors when alone, in the dark in a potentially dangerous situation.
Third, there is no fair way to make such a sweeping generalization of half the people in the world as to say that one gender or the other does something better. You will always be unfair to some people.
People's beliefs and experience are probably much more pertinent to the question of situational awareness then which bathroom they use.
I was wrong, and I apologize.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Stone_Wolf_ that was really big of you. I don't think badly of you for drawing conclusions based on direct experience, though. I'm fairly certain that, for the first few years of our marriage, my husband would have pinned my mittens to my coat if I'd let him. It took years for him to realize that I was very vigilant when out and about without him. (And several failed attempts to sneak up me/jump out and scare me. Also, one time I stopped just short hitting his beautiful nose with my elbow. *wince* )
Walking to the corner store by myself, I notice everything. Same trip with him, it wouldn't be unusual for me to trip on the uneven sidewalks or bump into a tree. I have to make an effort when I'm with him. Alone it comes naturally. *shrug*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: So, a store advertising goods in the window is asking to be pillaged?
What really gets me are all those elderly women using walkers while doing their grocery shopping. Obviously they can't run after you. What, do they expect to leave tempting things like a purse hanging right out there and not be molested?
Seriously asking for it. You can tell what they really want is a good mugging, not a 2-for-1 on Campbell's tomato soup.
Point well made! Women don't deserve to be raped because they are behaving in a sexually provocative fashion.
The thing is, Rawrain's argument is wrong for a still more important (in my mind) reason. If you leave your purse unattended in your shopping cart -- you really are more likely to have it stolen. You don't still deserve it, but it is actually more likely. But all the studies indicate that there is no connection between the way women dress and rape. You simply aren't more likely to be raped if you are wearing a plunging neckline than if you'd had on a turtleneck. In the overwhelming majority of rape cases, the victims were not doing anything sexually provocative.
It's at the heart of my biggest complaint about the way our society has chosen to deal with the problem of rape. Our solution to rape is to tell women that they should protect themselves by not going to certain places, not wearing certain clothes, not associating with certain people, not do certain jobs, not participating in certain types of entertainment (etc. ad nauseum). It's nowhere near as bad as forcing women to wear burkas in public, but its part of the same spectrum. Whether or not its the intent, these restriction inhibit women from being full free participants in society.
And to add insult to injury, when examined closely most of the restrictions don't address the real problems. More than eighty percent of people raped, are raped by someone they know -- not a stranger in a dark alley. More than 95% of people raped, aren't doing anything sexually provocative. Male and female children are equally likely to be sexually assaulted. Female adolescents are only slightly slightly more likely to be raped than male adolescents and much of the difference is due to date rape.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly, Rabbit. It's bad because it's offensive on gender-discrimination lines but also because it's unhelpful to the whole, y'know, 'how not to get raped' idea.
ETA: And, y'know it should go without saying (it did go without saying, from me-which was my bad) that CT is quite rad.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:An unnamed 26 year old woman was walking down the street in broad daylight when she was attacked by 15 year old Anferney Fontenet. Anferney pulled a pair of scissors on the woman and threatened to cut her if she screamed- then proceeded to rape her in public. Cars drove by, beeping their horns, and apparently a few motorists called 911 – but not a single driver nor citizen walking on that street even stopped as the woman was sexually assaulted.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
