Skin of the mothers, mouths of the babes
Randwolf said:
Oh, sorry..
sen·si·ble
1. having, using, or showing good sense or sound judgment: a sensible young woman.
2. cognizant; keenly aware (usually fol. by of): sensible of his fault.
3. significant in quantity, magnitude, etc.; considerable; appreciable: a sensible reduction in price.
and
pru·dent
1. wise or judicious in practical affairs; sagacious; discreet or circumspect; sober.
2. careful in providing for the future; provident: a prudent decision
I'm going to couple this with a question you asked:
*Sigh* What words do you want defined now?
What needs to be defined is the theory itself. As I noted in my response to Gustav, it's easy enough to wag your finger at women and tell them to take precautions, and certainly easy to be offended by people's inquiries about what you think are extreme measures. But when you don't define the boundaries of the theory, those extreme measures are in play.
I would encourage you to reconsider the
footnote to #262 in its proper context, which is a consideration of sexual repression in history. The problem with—
At this point, that is the idea.
—leaving the theory open-ended is that, as history suggests without any real doubt, thresholds of sexual stimulation are not static. Consider it like a tree root. Concrete sidewalks and retaining walls—pretty firm barriers by our standards—will buckle and give way under the pressure of natural forces. You can try to box it in, but eventually the root will either go through or around the barrier. If it goes through the barrier, the barrier itself will warp and break.
Thus, the super-repressed Puritans hauled half-naked women through town in horse carts, Increase Mather sexually molests the women in his congregation as a means of praying for their souls, and, well, this one is just too bizarre:
... Mukhtaran Bibi described how she was asked to appear before the informal village council to apologise for the alleged misdemeanour of her 12-year old brother.
He had been accused of an illicit affair with an older woman.
He says the story was concocted to cover up the fact that he had been sodomised by three men earlier in the day and threatened to report the incident ....
.... Mukhtaran Bibi testified that when she apologised to the council, made up of village elders in Punjab's Muzaffargarh area, one man said she should be pardoned.
But another man suddenly stood up, Ms Bibi testified, and said she should be raped.
She described begging the council to save her, but they took no notice and four men raped her while hundreds of villagers did nothing to stop the assault.
(
BBC)
There is tremendous sexual repression in much of the Islamic world, and what sort of result is this? A twelve-year old boy is allegedly sodomized, his
sister is expected to apologize for him, and the village elders sentence
her to be gang-raped.
I would ask you to just take a moment and think about that.
Sexuality will always find a way to the surface. Suppressing it only forces it to twist and bend in order to find its way into the light.
So as we consider a woman's precautions in our modern, allegedly enlightened culture, we might say that it is unwise to drink to blackout in the presence of men. Of course, we will cover our asses by saying, "That doesn't mean she deserved it. I am in no way condoning or encouraging rape." And, frankly, drinking to blackout just isn't a good idea.
Then we might make the point that a woman's attire might arouse an individual. Here's the thing, though: we might focus on women who, to borrow a phrase,
slut it up, and apparently—to consider
Gustav's point—there is something amiss, or somehow different and complicated, about the proposition that one need not slut it up in order to arouse a man.
However, what about jeans that fail to hide the contours of a woman's posterior? If she's showing off her ass, she might arouse a rapist. (In Italy, the Court of Cassations once ruled that tight jeans mean a woman can't be raped.)
So maybe she goes out on her date wearing baggy jeans, blocky hiking boots, and a frumpy sweatshirt.
Uh-oh. She went out on a date. This
might be taken by the man to mean she wants him to fuck her.
I mean, at this point, we're already beyond the pale of what is acceptable to
me. Women should not be obliged to consider every invitation for a date to be a proposition to have sex.
Nonetheless, to entertain the open-ended precaution theory, prudence suggests that a woman should not accept an invitation for a date because it might somehow encourage a rapist.
Marriage? How do you want to play the numbers? Is a
14% chance of marrying a man who will rape you enough that prudence suggest women should not marry men? After all, if she doesn't want to be raped ....
One of the standards that arises in defining certain mental illnesses, for instance, is that the issue interferes with one's ability to function normally. While you might acknowledge that an incident was "
Completely unavoidable" (I don't
think you were being sarcastic; correct me if I'm wrong), prudence in that particular case suggests that women should not trust men at all. Maybe she has known him for years, but in trusting him, she apparently increased her chances of being assaulted.
And this is part of my point. We are nowhere near the burqa or sequestration. Imagine that, as she thinks back over the incident, she remembers a time when he looked at her appreciatively and said something about how her husband would like that outfit. Well, maybe she should have been armed. Perhaps she would say to herself, "If I'd only shot him back then ...."
And while you're willing to decide and state a few things here or there fall within this undefined boundary, you're not willing to define the boundaries.
There is an old Sufi story about a dervish who came into town to pray. As is the custom, he removed his shoes before entering the mosque. The gadfly old men across the street immediately struck up a debate about this. Someone might steal the shoes he left outside the mosque. Would the dervish contribute to someone's sin if a thief steals the shoes? Is the sin entirely the thief's? The debate continued, even escalated until passers-by were drawn into the discussion. Eventually the dervish emerged from the mosque. He approached the knot of people engaged in this discussion, and they appealed to him for guidance. He said, "You must remember what is important. Should I have taken my shoes inside? Should I have left them outside? And yet the whole time, did any of you stop to think that there are some people who have no shoes at all?"
That's a rough retelling; my copy of the book has long been on a mysterious journey through diverse hands. The point, in this case, is that we might argue all day about what a woman should do, or should have done, to prevent a rape, but rapes are still occurring. Focusing on an undefined theory of precaution does, at best,
nothing to alleviate the problem of rape in general. In its worst form, despite your best intentions, it empowers rapists and, in perverting sexual expression through increasing repression, escalates the rapes. Because no matter how severe the precautionary measures get, there will still be rapes, and still be calls for further precautions. Even if some consensus emerges, it will necessarily demand reconsideration as rapes continue to occur. The list will grow longer and longer, and while precaution advocates might resent the idea that some perceive them as pushing women into sequestration and the burqa, your "inability to 'close the proposition'" leads toward such an end.
And if you are truly unable to close the proposition, the proposition itself becomes suspect.
This is a significant factor in why people respond with such frustration to this self-righteous proselytizing of precautions. Not only, in the end, does the theory have no boundaries, but it does
nothing about the general problem.
Well let's see. So far, we have thirty two suggestions by six members. Haven't you been harping about "So why don't you enumerate for us your rape-prevention dress code?". Just because it's not limited to dress code, haven't you been requesting this list for a while?
Thirty-two? A fine number.
To split the hair, I am more concerned with the boundaries. The dress code is simply one of the measures:
The object isn't to come up with one, or even a few measures, though. Rather, it is to establish reasonable boundaries.
Oh, and quit with the sniveling:
Oh, and to preclude what I anticipate coming next, "enumerate" explicitly refers to "list".
Good for you, sweetheart.
Now, if you are saying you want to see my personal suggestions, I am deliberately abstaining from adding to the developing list at this time. I fear provoking some of the members who may harbor resentment towards men who "offer little jewels of advice on how to prevent rape."
Oh, poor freakin' you. People might be upset that you're unwilling to define the boundaries of the burdens you place on victims. You're
so unfairly maligned.
As thing continue to move along in a positive direction, I fully intend to contribute.
Welcome to the hallelujah chorus.
Remember, we have thirty two suggestions by six members. It seems to be working. There seems to be at least some agreement that prudent, sensible precautions can reduce, not eliminate, the statistical probability of rape and other sexual assaults.
And there are cities in Washington.
I am sorry if you can not grasp the implicit meaning of "prudent and sensible". Oh, did I say implicit? I think I may have meant explicit denotations. What is your issue with these words anyway?
Standards like
prudent and
sensible are variable, defined diversely by each who considers them. Our precaution advocates are willing to promote such standards, resent suggestions of measures that violate their own definitions of such words, yet are unwilling to offer any actual idea of how far prudence and sensibility extend.
It appears that it is now permissible to discuss how women can go about reducing their likelihood of being a victim of rape. Without the thread dissolving in flames. This is progress, yes?
For those who would prefer the microcosmic approach and call it a solution.
You're actually going to use the same strawman argument to refute the original one?
Yeah, and your disingenuous litany about fallacy doesn't hold up. Perhaps you missed that point.
I have read every single post on this thread more than once, that should be obvious to even you. Whether my level of comprehension is adequate, or if I interpret them the same as you are other questions.
Actually, your comprehension is an important question. The absolute dearth of context about your litany is its undoing.
What I do know, is that you refuse to accept a retraction, or even outright apologies from members who have chosen words poorly. More than one member attempted to do this, and failed.
There is something inherently dubious about one who retracts, and who really meant to say another phrase that means the same thing.
Let it go man, we're beyond that now.
Not when you're pushing a misogynistic standard.
Great question! Wish I had thought of it.
Your insincerity is nothing new around here.
I geuss I would have to do some research to get the exact number, and of course I would want you to define "Inside the body". I can think of one offhand though, and that is murder. Are you contending that murder happens outside the body?
Why would I?
5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
Let's go with definition five, although allow me to digress for a moment:
1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
How can that be, hmmm? I mean the heart is inside the body, for God's sake.
Your theoretic rejection of the heart analogy might actually work if it is relevant to a given argument.
One 'thing' - a woman (please allow the use of the word 'thing', as it is used in the dictionary definition of analogy, I am fully aware that a woman is not a 'thing') Or maybe, it just occured to me, is that your issue here? Because the dictionary utilizes the word 'thing' in the definition of analogy?
No. The issue is that the analogies only apply in the most superficial context. I would appreciate your consideration of the following questions:
• Does your car ever want to go out dancing? How about your television? Your laptop?
• Can the police recover a girl's virginity? How about her senses of dignity, trust and safety?
• If the police cannot recover these things, can an insurance company replace them?
• Is a man an animal or machine without conscience, thought, or will?
• How long does it take you to look both ways before crossing the street?
• What is the rape-prevention analogy to a car alarm, or a steering-lock device?
The analogies so far are either too simple or too ridiculous to be applicable.
In any event, let's assume that it is, in fact valid to use some analogies that refer to women, and you just don't like the ones mentioned in this thread.
Very well. Did you figure that out on your own, or did someone help you?
If that is the case, let me proceed. One 'thing' (in this case a woman) is inferred to be similar to another 'thing' (a car, a computer, etc.) in a certain respect (precautions can convey safety) on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects. (aren't all these precious to varying degrees, and don't they share the trait of "it is desirous for them to remain unharmed"?)
My car has never wept in my arms and apologized for not being a virgin because it had been raped as a child. The varying degrees of affectation or preciousness we invest in material objects should, as a general rule, manifest in a different context than our regard for fellow human beings, in this case lovers, wives, sisters, daughters, and friends at least.
Now to refute the validity of an analogy viewed in this way, you would seem to have to disagree with at least one of these:
A car and a woman can have their safety enhanced by observing certain precautions. If you attack this one, then we are arguing in a circle here, because that is the point of the analogy.
It is desirous for both a car and a woman to remain unharmed. It's not?
I can simply note that the analogy is too general. To secure a car, for instance, you simply push a button, or slide a lock into place. If only preventing rapes was so simple.
Additionally, as suggested above, I think there is—or, at least, ought to be—a clear difference between our affectations toward material objects and human beings.
What I think you're going to do here, is stir back up all the hysterics again because I have to try to explain to you what an analogy is.
Can the melodrama.
I mean, theoretically, an analogy could be drawn between any two items or entities.
The question is whether the analogy is functional. In this case, the presuppositions are problematic. The precautions and the impact of those precautions on a person's quality of life are vastly different. There is, at least as I see it, a fundamental difference between our sentiments for material objects and cars. Frankly, I don't really
care how a car alarm works. If it works, it works. If I could push a button and protect a woman from being raped in all but the most extreme of circumstances, I would want to know how the device worked.
I mean everything is made of matter isn't it? And yes, I am aware of the duality properties of particles at the quantum level, are they technically matter, let's not go there, OK? So for purposes of this illustration, everything is made of matter, so a man and a golfball are both similar in the sense that they have volume, mass, etc. This does not imply that a man is a golf ball, anymore than anyone ever tried to imply that a woman was the same as or equivalent to a PC or a car, nor was there any intent to dehumanize anyone. IMHO
And I can accept that you are not intending to dehumanize anyone. I'll even go so far as to accept that you're not trying to anthropomorphize a golf ball.
The analogy only works so far. The ranges of the analogies we have encountered so far are not effective vis a vis a human being facing the looming spectre of rape.
Maybe what you were trying to say is that these weren't good analogies, and that better ones could be devised. You are no doubt correct, at least to some extent. However, the purpose of an analogy is to facilitate communication. So, if you didn't "get it", why not just ask the poster what he was trying to say?
It's not a matter of not getting it. If someone thinks I have missed the point on their analogy, they are welcome to clarify.
The problem of, say, Lepus' analogy of
locking car doors, or Gustav's point about
looking both ways before crossing the street is that they are incredibly simple precautions that do not in and of themselves have any real impact on one's quality of life.
Not wearing clothes you like, because you're afraid? Not going to a party, because you're afraid? Not accepting dates, because you're afraid? These have greater impact on a person's quality of life.
That's the nice thing about analogies, you "can break them down". Why not try asking sometime, instead of immediately going on the offensive and attacking? Oh, and by the way, going from specifics to generalities is not necessarily disengenous, it's called "inductive reasoning", so if analogies in fact do have validity, this point is moot.
When your leap to the general ignores the particular except to misrepresent it, we do not call this "inductive reasoning". Disingenuous, at the scale of your litany, is a kind word.
We've covered this ....
.... Purely your opinion. You can do better than that.
When you can make an honest representation of the points in question, we can call that "progress".
We haven't even established how "slender" this percentage is. Several people have mentioned they don't know the statistics, including me. Do you?
Those statistics don't seem to be readily available. And once we find them, we'll have to devise some means between establishing between a genuine motivation and the first seemingly convenient defense the rapist blurts out.
In addition, I think we are beyond this whole "caricature issue" now, try to keep up.
Context, Randwolf. There's that word again. Figure it out.
(
chortle!)
Sorry, did I confuse you?
Your declarations of fallacy are based entirely on
your restatement of people's points in terms convenient to
you that, not coincidentally, it seems, happen to
ignore the
context of the original posts from which you extracted them.
Good point, you obviously don't understand the concept of an "aside", where the rules are a little different. And no, I have no desire to explain what an aside is, I will simply stop using them when communicating with you. You need to relax a little.
Ah, right. Whatever you say, Randwolf.
What, are you referring to your refusal to close the gap?
And this, your getting repetitive
I can only work with what you give me.
1. Advocating precautions, even discussing the concept, equates to defense of rape and rapists. (textbook straw man)
2. Mentioning prudence is transferring the blame for rape to women. (straw man)
3. Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. (hyperbole)
4. To advocate precautions is to infringe on women's legal rights. (again, textbook straw man)
5. I (or my sister, daughter, etc.) took precautions, and I was sexually assaulted, therefore precautions don't work. (anecdotal)
6. Rape is unique, therefore arguing by analogy is insulting and invalid. (non sequitur)
7. The incidence of rape may or may not be reduced by precautions, however, I am not interested in precautions because it would inhibit my freedom. (avoids the question)
8. Most rapes involve victims that know the rapist, no precautions would help in these cases, so since precautionary theory applies only to a small percentage of victims it is not worthy of discussion. (Maybe, but "not worthy of discussion" is a matter of opinion. The "no precautions would help" assumes facts not in evidence.)
9. Rape is is not and could not be influenced in any way at any time by any failure to follow prudent and sensible precautions. (the crux of the matter, and a valid argument, just false)
To reiterate:
A convenient and disingenuous reformulation of arguments fostered by your "different fashion".
And since that confused you:
Your declarations of fallacy are based entirely on your restatement of people's points in terms convenient to you that, not coincidentally, it seems, happen to ignore the context of the original posts from which you extracted them.
None of them have been proposed throughout the thread. The fallacies you purport are dependent on your own apathy toward the context of the posts you excerpted.
I stand by my argument that everyone of these counterarguments, as I have defined them, are invoked multiple times in many, as in a lot, of posts.
Of course you do. That's pretty much expected.
However, i am not going to debate the relative merits and nuances of context in each and every post.
There's a surprise.
The language was there, in every case, no matter how contextually relevant.
When you demonstrate that you understand the words you're trying to denounce and dismiss, you'll be better able to present a credible argument.
These counterarguments account for the majority of posts by the anti-precautionary crowd, and most of them are based on fallacies
Again, disingenuous, and based solely on your own apathy toward context.
I don't know, are they on the list? After all, it is supposed to represent precautions that the members have found to be prudent and sensible. Hmmm, nope, don't see 'em, guess not. If you think they are sensible and prudent, why don't you suggest them to the crowd?
In which way would you prefer I regard you poorly? Ignorant, or simply dishonest? Quite clearly, you have missed the point. The only real question is whether you intended to.
These "reasonable boundaries" that you keep going on about are contained in the denotations of the words prudent and sensible. I apologize again for not having included the definitions in my prior post.[/black]
Seattle is in Washington.
I take very much offense at the word "insincere". My argument is anything but insincere, and since neither of us can prove this either way, you're just going to have to take my word for it. And just go hang the rest of the name calling.
Quit the bawling. Put up an honest argument and you'll avoid such appearances.
Your repeating yourself again, see above
Again, I can only work with what you give me.
Your repeating yourself again, see above
See above.
And I was right, too, it seems. Or did you, in your zeal, forget what you wrote earlier in this post?
"I am sorry that at this time I am unable to 'close the proposition'."
Your repeating yourself again, see above
(
Yawn.) It's all you're giving me to work with.
No, and irrelevant. No, and irrelevant.
If you say so. However, your understanding of the point you cited and attempted to dismiss is very doubtful, especially in light of your open refusal of context.
I thought you might have figured out yet that I put "burqas" and "sequestration" in the same category as "complete isolation", ergo I do not advocate.
Now
there is a start. Congratulations. You just drew a boundary.
I have no problem categorically taking a stand on that particular "suggestion".
Courageous.
Did you seriously think I was on board with having women wear burqas?
I figured you didn't, but your refusal to close the gap left the possibility open.
See how that works, Randwolf? When you draw certain boundaries, certain measures come off the list.
I guess I should have broken this down for you earlier. The fault lies in the words "complete isolation" in: Precautionary theory is invalid because the only effective precaution is complete isolation. I think revision two will expand on that to say something to the effect of "isolation or other such ridiculous extremes" - not that it will matter to you, but that is the intent.
I think it would help your argument if you showed more confidence in it.
Here's a challenge for you - find a single, solitary one of my posts that implicitly or explicitly advocates burqas or sequestration
Ah, yes. You're not responsible for the effects and implications of your words. You don't need to say it explicitly, only leave it in the range included in the theory. Take any extreme generalization. Pick any potential effect it might have. Certainly, one need not explicitly call for that effect in order to have advocated that outcome. If you don't think through the implications of what you advocate, people are going to have to figure out which ones apply. For the most part, you refuse to establish those boundaries. Apparently, it is only in exasperation and defense of your pride that you will make even the most obvious assertion of a boundary.
How about extra points if you can find anyone's post that explicitly recommends either of these?
See above. It's one of the hazards of not closing the range of a generalization.
No I'm not ducking subtleties ....
Given that it took until only a few paragraphs ago for you to establish even a weak assertion of limits, and given that you're still having trouble grasping the concept of what lies within the range of open generalization, I suppose you're right, you're not actually ducking them. Rather, it would seem you're largely blind to them.
... and I think there are a few suggestions that would have some applicability about "date-rape", especially if you mean "date" and not "husband" or "significant other".
Sure. How about "acquaintance rape", since it covers a broader range without trespassing on marital rape or significant others.
Keeping control of who orders your drink if you are at a bar is one I seem to recall being on the list. You do grant drugging of drinks is a significant factor in date rape, right?
Yep. This isn't just a measure against rape. It applies to other crimes as well.
Let's play with the concept of scale. It would seem to me that if equivalence of scale was a prerequisite to forming an analogy, that no analogies could be formed. How did I arrive at that conclusion? Well, I am unable to offhand think of any two events that are of precisely identical scale, even the same kind of events. Are two different earthquakes or floods of the "same" scale? Any two crimes? Doesn't the impact of the event vary according to circumstances, no matter if both events are absolutely horrible? Or are you saying some types of events are superlative in nature, and therefore it is valid to compare these, and only these in an analogy? Who decides these things, you?
Well, you're starting off with an exercise in missing the point. Scale helps with the
applicability of a given analogy. Analogies are like syllogisms: they are a rhetorical form. Their accuracy and applicability is a completely different question.
What, no burqa? That's it? That's a bit like putting a small orange buoy in the middle of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and expecting it to block incoming marine traffic.
And yet that is inherent in the open-ended precaution theory.
Gap's been addressed, you're also strawmanning your strawman again. I am not transferring anything onto women.
Because you say so doesn't make it true.
Same old strawman, what's wrong are you low on originality today?
I can only work with what you give me. See above.
I think I was pretty candid about these examples.
Of course you do. You were also very candid when you openly refused context. Be as candid as you want, but don't fool yourself into thinking that means you have a legitimate point.
My position is that the thread is rife with fallacies, that they can be broken down into broad categories and refuted logically.
Gosh, I never would have figured that part out.
Let's address the whole context thing again, my turn to repeat myself.
Given that you've offered no substantial new material in the interim, do you really expect my response to change?
OK, commercial break, cause this is just laughable!
Must be your own private joke.
You know, I thought you were being facetious, but you really don't understand the basic concept of analogy. I'm glad I took the time to spell it out for you, please see my previous post for an explanation.
The fact that an analogy is expressed does not automatically make it applicable.
Got it, close the gap, context, scale - check, check, check - all addressed
And addressed very poorly.
But would you include it on your list? Or have you thrown a second buoy into the water in hopes of stopping the traffic?
My personal opinion? She took a whole lot of precautions. Whatever happened to her was not her fault, quit trying to transfer blame there.
Hey, it's
your theory. I'm just trying to figure out its boundaries.
However, are you advocating she should not have taken these precautions?
Her precautions are her business. However, considering them in the context—there's that word again—of your precaution theory, we see a suggestion that these precautions did not achieve the goals the theory purports. Your question overlooks this aspect of the discussion and suggests that your arguments aren't about the topic but some personal issue that may or may not have to do with me.
Are you expecting a fool proof rape prevention scheme to arise from precaution theory?
Nope. What would ever give you the idea that I was?
Now let me make sure I have this straight, we have over three hundred fifty posts, and everyone seems to be playing nicely for the last ten or so. Except you of course.
(
chortle!)
We have thirty something, real, concrete suggestions, from a half dozen members.
And two buoys amid miles of choppy water.
We seem to have moved past the "Can we" to the "How do we" lessen the probability of sexual assault.
And, since it is unfortunate that you continually ignore the historical consideration of sexual repression, even if the "how" is implemented on a wide scale, it will have to be recalculated when the trend in rapes adapts accordingly. And then you'll get some more fine suggestions, and on implementation, the trend will adapt again. And the whole time, we'll be worrying about a sliding theory that never once addresses the actual problem of rape and how and why it occurs.
I think we've made major progress, if you don't upset the applecart.
Toward what?
Silly me, I thought you would be happy about this.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
The point that you scored, and I granted was context. I apologize to any individuals who may be offended over the charactarization of some particular post.
However, I stand by my categorization of the eight or nine primary arguments proposed by the anti-precautionary group. I also haven't seen anyone, besides you, present one of these fallacious arguments since they were first laid out in my post.
Who knows? Maybe they agree. Maybe they aren't paying attention. Maybe they're not bothering because it's so clear you don't get it. It's up to them, and if they want to tell you, or me, or us, they will.
I have now addressed, your concerns. If you continue to rant, it will be obvious that you are attempting to sabotage the progress made so far.
The fact of these posts does not automatically make their content accurate, correct, or assign them any other merit.
I am quite dissapointed with your efforts this time around as well ....
Yes, you're obviously so perceptive and insightful. After all, you have no need for context or nuance, do you?
____________________
Notes:
BBC. "Pakistani woman tells of rape ordeal". August 3, 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2170586.stm
STAR. "Marital Rape". Updated August 5, 2005. http://www.star.ak.org/Library/files/maritalrape.htm
