My apologies - totally missed the presence of a link there - still adjusting to the new format.
More later, but as a general remark - there is very little in either of your posts that I disagree with.
Misogyny, Guns, Rape and Culture..
- Thread starter Bells
- Start date
- Status
More later, but as a general remark - there is very little in either of your posts that I disagree with.
That is fantasy. It has not, for example, happened in this thread, nor is it common elsewhere.randwolf said:
So? What's this "guilty of" language doing here?randwolf said:
And that's about it, isn't it.randwolf said:
Personally, I don't think saying rape is bad and common and NFL players should not do it is necessarily prevention at all, neither does unspecified "counseling" necessarily belong. If you have an argument that such stuff is rape prevention, rather than an early and long overdue initial step toward public recognition of the nature of the need for rape prevention, then the floor is yours. Note the influence of centuries of "education" and awareness and counseling on rape prevalence among the priests of the Catholic Church.
Which makes the belligerently defended void where such discussion belongs - namely in any and all discussions of rape prevention, as priority uno - all the more striking.
And the lack of such automatic deference to "quality of life" when adopting behavior modifications for women as one's fundamental approach all the more brightly highlighted.
No, they don't.randwolf said:
One "side" is dominating public discussion, so much so that you can read 17 pages of this thread and see 17 pages of people trying to pry its dead weight off and get it to shut up and reconsider its ways, and that side - the conflation (and I need to say that) - is a basic and harmful error. The other "side's" several positions, which are none of them basic and harmful errors, are not merely "lost in the noise" but actively rejected, misrepresented, lied about, disparaged, and deflected with insult - buried under troll doo by people lacking in comprehension.
The problem is not the ease of conflation (that's a symptom). The problem is the difficulty of a deconflation that ought to be the work of a sentence or two - that's a cultural dysfunction.
Randwolf said:
Tru'nuff. I suppose I'm just weary of the day, so to speak. And sometimes, you know ... it's like roofing. Damn it, I told him there was a reason I was using the smaller hammer ....
Actually, it wouldn't have been a problem except we really should have replaced that section of the wood.
Er ... never mind. The roof is irrelevant, and no, it's not on fire.
Let's do a prog rock throwback to '93.
If one cranks it up loud enough, it does help a person feel better.
Bells
Staff member
Where did I supposedly advise to not fight back?
Do you read what is actually written? I ask this because you seem to be seeing things that aren't even there.
I never said women should not fight back. You are the one who said that when you asked if women should lie there and "take it like a woman". What I did say and repeatedly explained to you because you seem to be either intellectually incapable of reading and comprehension or you are deliberately incapable of it, is that each rapist is different. Some rapists get off on victims who fight back while others do not. Being able to tell the difference between the two can mean the difference between life and death. With sadistic rapists, yes, it may mean having to lie there and not fight back if it increases your chances of survival, because as I linked earlier, with such rapists, fighting back will most probably mean that he will kill you. With rapists who are more contrite about what they are doing, who seem intent on discussing the woman's comfort while raping her, fighting back may put them off.
Do you understand now? Because you failed to understand the many many links I posted about the typology of rapists and of rape itself, you failed to understand what I was actually writing down, so do you need me to use smaller words? Or are you just being disingenuous for the sake of it?
But you do lack even minute amounts of empathy? Remember your "you fail" comments aimed at me? Remember how you badgered me because the legal system would not prosecute my rapist and how you kept at me and at me because you felt I had somehow failed in that regard? Did you not even consider how hard the reality of rape prevention ideology made it for me to get him into a courtroom? I mean, you seemed to ignore it and instead attacked me because you failed to understand the legal system in Australia.
It's okay, we can work around your absolute lack of empathy. What we cannot work around, however, is your dishonesty. Now, you are either this dishonest because you do lack the ability to read and comprehend words appearing on your screen, or you are deliberately this dishonest. Which one is it exactly?
Is that why you brought up arguments about the insanity defense, and attacked me because of your misunderstanding and why you have been dodging answering questions about your own words in this thread?
I'm sorry, but I need to ask, are you aware that the "all men are potential rapists" argument is what rape prevention is actually about? That that is its central basis? That women have to treat all men as potential rapists and always be aware and prepared to prevent it?
Rape prevention ideology, like what you have been peddling in this thread, is telling women that all men are potential rapists and that they must always "beware" and be prepared to prevent being raped. Don't drink as any male around you is a potential rapist if you are drunk, don't go out at night or to certain areas because all men around you are potential rapists, don't get into bed with men or be alone with men because all men are potential rapists. This is rape prevention.
Has that fact eluded you?
Do you even know or understand what you have been peddling in this and the other threads about rape?
I was waiting for when you would bring up the object of your girlish crush.
You are the one who has been carrying on and whining about women taking precautions as "rape prevention" which means that all men to you and the ideology you are spouting here, would be like Elliot Rodger or a rapist.
Are you still upset that women expect men to not be misogynists?
This isn't what you are advocating though. You are deliberately targeting women and even rape victims and telling them that they fail if they did not prevent being raped. You cannot even acknowledge the dangers of your ideology or the fact that not all rapists are the same and that not all rapists are stranger rapes.
Tell me, do you wear running shoes and tracksuit to bed at night when you sleep with your husband or partner for rape prevention? Since you know, he is the one who is more than likely to rape you than any other male you know. If not, why not? Do you never drink alcohol when your husband or partner is around? If you do drink alcohol in his presence, why do you do so? Because you keep advocating for women not drinking as rape prevention, when the reality is that if you do drink alcohol in the presence of your intimate male partner, by your very argument, you are failing at rape prevention. Do you tell your daughter to not be alone with her father or male siblings? Did you allow your daughter's father to undress her when she was a baby? If you did, why did you do so? Since the very rape prevention ideology you demand of others would deem your daughter's father or any male relative more likely to rape her than anyone else. I could go on, but you get my drift. Unless of course you require pictures? Smaller words? Or are you just going to twist and and lie again?
Now, are you going to answer those questions from the many posters who are still waiting for pages now? Or are you going to keep changing the subject and dodging them?
That's why we can never have a honest discussion. You attack, twist, and antagonize. Most of our time is spent untwisting your tales.
The fail comment was aimed at the public when they're fighting for their life to compensate for your poor advice.
Badgered you? You said your attacker was deemed too mentally unstable to face trial. My family owns a law firm. I knew this was not accurate and offered to help you. I told you that this plea was not permitted. I told that if he pleaded not guilty that section 88 must be applied. I asked you if you wanted me to help you with the sections.
Prosecution is important, right?
Wrong.
Bells said:
The fail comment was aimed at the public when they're fighting for their life to compensate for your poor advice.
Badgered you? You said your attacker was deemed too mentally unstable to face trial. My family owns a law firm. I knew this was not accurate and offered to help you. I told you that this plea was not permitted. I told that if he pleaded not guilty that section 88 must be applied. I asked you if you wanted me to help you with the sections.
Prosecution is important, right?
Wrong.
Bells
Staff member
Yes Trooper. It's everyone else and not you.
/Pat..
Changing the narrative again? Twisting things again?
I mean, I get it, you're the type who has to blatantly lie, but really, this is taking the cake. I say that rape victims need to be careful, because some rapists get off on those who fight back and thus, become more violent and you think that is poor advice? Better tell the people who write the book on rape typology as well then. Because apparently you seem to know full well what make sadists tick as you believe that women who act on their instincts and judge their rapists and act according to the highest chance of survival are "fail" in your opinion. I'll look at myself as a prime example. Had I taken your advice or done as you demand, I would be dead. Without fail. But thankfully my self defense classes taught me about my self control and how my ultimate aim should be my survival and if it means waiting, then so be it. Because when someone is trying to beat you into unconsciousness and then tries to choke you because you tried to fight back, then the primary goal is to survive, which means doing what he wants until the chance to escape opens up when he relaxes and lets down his guard. Your advice would have resulted in my being killed within a few seconds. My advice saw me not only be able to get away, but also survive.
Which advice should women listen to again? The one that completely disregards the psychology of rapists and individuals in general and go balls to the walls fighting back because you believe the worst thing that can happen at that point is to be raped? Or the one that has women judging what is best for themselves and their survival?
I explained what had happened with my particular case and what I have experienced with the legal system here, you tried to twist it into something else and then accused me of somehow failing because he was never prosecuted. Over and over again. It went on for a while actually.
As I noted Trooper, it's not everyone else who is the problem here. It's you.
Are you going to dodge some more? Or are you going to answer those questions? If you are going to dodge some more, then I am going to get some drinks and snacks. Because your performance here is rivaling that of Kathy Bates in Misery.
My question required a simple Yes/No answer, not an overly defensive and hostile response. It appears that your opinion does not differ significantly from the posters you are belittling in this thread. Why is it OK for you to suggest that women can engage in behaviours to help minimise the risk of rape, yet not OK for others to hold the exact same opinion? Seems rather hypocritical, if you ask me.
So you agree that adopting certain behaviours can reduce the risk of rape, but don't want to share them with women because it is contrary to your ideological sensibilities. I don't think that it's very ethical to impinge on a woman' autonomy because of your personal beliefs. Let's tell women the facts, and then let them come to their own conclusions.
Bells
Staff member
I believe I made my point in my first post to you tali. Did you read it? A simple yes or no will suffice.
It would behoove you, as a new member, to not leap head first into a thread where you clearly do not understand what is being discussed but instead, appear to be adopting the argument of another who is, at present, so far off the mark that it is becoming a comedy.
I did read your post. Do you believe it is ethical to not provide women with factual information that may reduce the risk of being raped, simply because it conflicts with your ideological sensibilities?
No, regarding a woman a slave who voluntarily enters pregnancy (bondage) is your ill supported analogy.
American society mandates that women become pregnant? And that once they do, must remain so? No, it doesn’t. Most states place restrictions on abortion in the last 15 weeks of pregnancy in recognition of a right to life of a sufficiently developed fetus. By failing to exercise effective birth control, or timely termination, such women are obligated to assume the responsibility for the welfare of a rightfully qualified fetus, unless this obligation represents a reasonable threat to the woman's physical welfare.
Bells
Staff member
Can you please explain or show where I have even said such a thing? Because you are asking me this question as though I have made such a statement. When I never have.
Just to refresh your memory on what you posted: "No one is arguing against rape prevention. What we are arguing against is the ideology places the onus squarely on women to not be raped and when such prevention advocacy means they "fail" if they are raped and thus, blame them for being raped because they "failed""
You acknowledged that you don't have any disagreement with rape prevention on a factual basis. What you're concerned about is that it will lead down some sort of slippery slope where the woman may be blamed for her rape, which is repugnant to your sensibilities.
Did I? I rather thought all I'd done was state something. I'll cut myself a little, sometimes, and show you the blood. No one needs to look at me in any particular way at all.
Now I could, at this point, probably insert some sort of insult regarding your depth of understanding, once again. But I think all I'll do, instead, is say that there are times when one can recognise himself, or at least some small part of what makes a man who he is, in a character. You obviously didn't, in Boz. That movie was from Paxton's point of view. It's clear what he thought of Boz. Boz himself, on the other hand, wanted none of it. But in spite of himself, he got out of that van. The scene with Paxton and Boz peeling potatoes with Cantwell was a precursor. I get Boz.
The real pain, Tiassa, as far as I'm concerned, is not in what you think other people are. It isn't in feeling their pain.
It's in knowing what you are.
Leave it to you, as well, to immediately embark upon a discussion concerning whether or not you like the director. Never do miss a chance to pontificate, do you - even if only for a moment.
But to expand a little further on the other night:
Of course there is. Your stance on it, though, is going to be more than enough to reinforce what I already do think of you. You can't escape that, any more than I can.
I suppose, though, that once again we have come full circle. I'm not even sure you understand what that "larger issue" really is.
You see, this thread isn't about rape at all.
We call them "Threads". That's exactly what they are. This place is a giant tapestry.
Rape is only the context provided for us to come together and... have at it. Once again.
But what is the real issue? Can you tell me?
Probably. Lee Kuan Yew didn't concern himself too much with what the general populace thought either.
If you are going to so limit your own understanding of tyrants by only reading one book, then do not bother speaking to me of your understanding of tyrants.
Bells and her ideological soul mates unreasonably believe that women have a reasonable expectation not be raped in a society that is functionally incapable of restraining all men who are inclined to rape. In light of this reality, it becomes unreasonable not to advise women to attempt to mitigate the threat of rape by whatever reasonable means at their disposal.
Walking with my feet ten feet off the Beale
Also, a parody is supposed to be funny. Rape isn't funny. But neither is this.... reaction, we're seeing to it.
What I'm seeing here, quite independent of the topic at hand. The idea that this thread, any thread, is about what it purports to be about, is absurd.
It merely provides context for the simplistic. A forum by which we might encapsulate, in some small way, who or what we are.
I find it incredibly difficult to stay on topic. That is because, quite simply, the topic is always the same. The adversary is always the adversary. Have you ever seen anyone cross the floor, to put it in (Australian) parliamentary terms?
We have Nietzsche expressing the ideal of Joy in response to a world which can not make sense, but.... he is asking something of us as difficult to truly believe as feeling a belief in God.
I can. Just as long as I don't remember that this is something I'm being asked to do. As long as I don't remember that it is only Panadol.
I always remember. Always. That this belief is not necessarily mine.
The Will to Power requires surrender. And I can't get past that.
I know there is a war on. I know which side I'm on. I don't know how to express it, completely. Perhaps it might suffice to say that I do see you holding a shovel. Sometimes, that's enough.
I had to Google Elliot Rodgers. I read the Wikipedia article. And you know... I have this instinctive dislike for Wikipedia. But there are times... the paragraph headed "Misogyny" is here is this thread.
We refer to such things as a guilty pleasure.
Why do we feel guilt? Because we know exactly what it is we're doing.
I saw a like, once. I don't even remember who it was that gave it to me; I could check right now, if I wanted to. I don't want to, though. Because I'd know something a little more about the person who gave it to me, and it would forever influence any response I had for that person.
It works though, doesn't it? One way or the other. Because of
Do you let a man know who you really are before you begin the flirtation?
So much more evident in those who purport to be the champions of human... empathy.
Underdeveloped... umm. But also rejected and underdeveloped. Animal.
Have you ever picked up a kitten by the scruff of the neck? Absolute, instant acquiescence. It's fascinating.
Men can be turned into complete fools at the sight of a pretty face. But I've seen women react in exactly the same way.
Where is honesty in the face of that? Where is Choice?
There is probably more. But not right now.
Walking in Memphis
But do I really feel the way I feel?
It would... but then I'd immediately start wondering where this other world is. The one we're parodying.
Also, a parody is supposed to be funny. Rape isn't funny. But neither is this.... reaction, we're seeing to it.
What I'm seeing here, quite independent of the topic at hand. The idea that this thread, any thread, is about what it purports to be about, is absurd.
It merely provides context for the simplistic. A forum by which we might encapsulate, in some small way, who or what we are.
I find it incredibly difficult to stay on topic. That is because, quite simply, the topic is always the same. The adversary is always the adversary. Have you ever seen anyone cross the floor, to put it in (Australian) parliamentary terms?
We have Nietzsche expressing the ideal of Joy in response to a world which can not make sense, but.... he is asking something of us as difficult to truly believe as feeling a belief in God.
I can. Just as long as I don't remember that this is something I'm being asked to do. As long as I don't remember that it is only Panadol.
I always remember. Always. That this belief is not necessarily mine.
The Will to Power requires surrender. And I can't get past that.
I know there is a war on. I know which side I'm on. I don't know how to express it, completely. Perhaps it might suffice to say that I do see you holding a shovel. Sometimes, that's enough.
I had to Google Elliot Rodgers. I read the Wikipedia article. And you know... I have this instinctive dislike for Wikipedia. But there are times... the paragraph headed "Misogyny" is here is this thread.
Not at all. Until you get out of the van.
We refer to such things as a guilty pleasure.
Why do we feel guilt? Because we know exactly what it is we're doing.
I saw a like, once. I don't even remember who it was that gave it to me; I could check right now, if I wanted to. I don't want to, though. Because I'd know something a little more about the person who gave it to me, and it would forever influence any response I had for that person.
Do you have an answer for that? I don't. For the simple reason that both reflect the same base principle.
It works though, doesn't it? One way or the other. Because of
This.
Do you let a man know who you really are before you begin the flirtation?
Speaking of which, I have not missed the ease with which some can abandon one ideal in the pursuit of another.
So much more evident in those who purport to be the champions of human... empathy.
Do you think "weak" was the right word to use, there? Or did you use it in the contest of your own ideal?
Underdeveloped... umm. But also rejected and underdeveloped. Animal.
Have you ever picked up a kitten by the scruff of the neck? Absolute, instant acquiescence. It's fascinating.
Men can be turned into complete fools at the sight of a pretty face. But I've seen women react in exactly the same way.
Where is honesty in the face of that? Where is Choice?
There is probably more. But not right now.
Walking in Memphis
But do I really feel the way I feel?
“A Great Rabbi stands, teaching in the marketplace. It happens that a husband finds proof that morning of his wife's adultery, and a mob carries her to the marketplace to stone her to death.
There is a familiar version of this story, but a friend of mine - a Speaker for the Dead - has told me of two other Rabbis that faced the same situation. Those are the ones I'm going to tell you.
The Rabbi walks forward and stands beside the woman. Out of respect for him the mob forbears and waits with the stones heavy in their hands. 'Is there any man here,' he says to them, 'who has not desired another man's wife, another woman's husband?'
They murmur and say, 'We all know the desire, but Rabbi none of us has acted on it.'
The Rabbi says, 'Then kneel down and give thanks that God has made you strong.' He takes the woman by the hand and leads her out of the market. Just before he lets her go, he whispers to her, 'Tell the Lord Magistrate who saved his mistress, then he'll know I am his loyal servant.'
So the woman lives because the community is too corrupt to protect itself from disorder.
Another Rabbi. Another city. He goes to her and stops the mob as in the other story and says, 'Which of you is without sin? Let him cast the first stone.'
The people are abashed, and they forget their unity of purpose in the memory of their own individual sins. ‘Someday,’ they think, ‘I may be like this woman. And I’ll hope for forgiveness and another chance. I should treat her as I wish to be treated.’
As they opened their hands and let their stones fall to the ground, the Rabbi picks up one of the fallen stones, lifts it high over the woman’s head and throws it straight down with all his might it crushes her skull and dashes her brain among the cobblestones. ‘Nor am I without sins,’ he says to the people, ‘but if we allow only perfect people to enforce the law, the law will soon be dead – and our city with it.’
So the woman died because her community was too rigid to endure her deviance.
The famous version of this story is noteworthy because it is so startlingly rare in our experience. Most communities lurch between decay and rigor mortis and when they veer too far they die. Only one Rabbi dared to expect of us such a perfect balance that we could preserve the law and still forgive the deviation.
So of course, we killed him.
-San Angelo
Letters to an Incipient Heretic”
― Orson Scott Card, Speaker for the Dead
(copy/paste)
There is a familiar version of this story, but a friend of mine - a Speaker for the Dead - has told me of two other Rabbis that faced the same situation. Those are the ones I'm going to tell you.
The Rabbi walks forward and stands beside the woman. Out of respect for him the mob forbears and waits with the stones heavy in their hands. 'Is there any man here,' he says to them, 'who has not desired another man's wife, another woman's husband?'
They murmur and say, 'We all know the desire, but Rabbi none of us has acted on it.'
The Rabbi says, 'Then kneel down and give thanks that God has made you strong.' He takes the woman by the hand and leads her out of the market. Just before he lets her go, he whispers to her, 'Tell the Lord Magistrate who saved his mistress, then he'll know I am his loyal servant.'
So the woman lives because the community is too corrupt to protect itself from disorder.
Another Rabbi. Another city. He goes to her and stops the mob as in the other story and says, 'Which of you is without sin? Let him cast the first stone.'
The people are abashed, and they forget their unity of purpose in the memory of their own individual sins. ‘Someday,’ they think, ‘I may be like this woman. And I’ll hope for forgiveness and another chance. I should treat her as I wish to be treated.’
As they opened their hands and let their stones fall to the ground, the Rabbi picks up one of the fallen stones, lifts it high over the woman’s head and throws it straight down with all his might it crushes her skull and dashes her brain among the cobblestones. ‘Nor am I without sins,’ he says to the people, ‘but if we allow only perfect people to enforce the law, the law will soon be dead – and our city with it.’
So the woman died because her community was too rigid to endure her deviance.
The famous version of this story is noteworthy because it is so startlingly rare in our experience. Most communities lurch between decay and rigor mortis and when they veer too far they die. Only one Rabbi dared to expect of us such a perfect balance that we could preserve the law and still forgive the deviation.
So of course, we killed him.
-San Angelo
Letters to an Incipient Heretic”
― Orson Scott Card, Speaker for the Dead
(copy/paste)
Bells
Staff member
One would hope that blaming women for being raped would be repugnant to all sensibilities.
You don't find the thought of blaming women for being raped "repugnant to your sensibilities"?
It isn't a fear that it may happen, because it already does happen. Had you read this thread, you'd have discovered that already.
Still twisting I see..Turducken said:
At some point, you and your ilk will stop lying. Hopefully it is soon.
I can say that I am thankful I never bought into Trooper's brand of rape prevention. If I had, I would never have survived. Thankfully I had better actual training and knowledge than listening to some person on the internet screaming about how I should fight or "fail".
Which is the issue with rape prevention as advocated by so many. Keep pushing these beliefs on women, and tell them how they can "prevent" being raped. And if these women are raped, not only do they blame themselves, but society then judges them and instead of blaming the rapist, her actions are to blame. This happens now. Do you think this is acceptable?
I'll repeat one thing however, which it seems, so many rape prevention advocates can't seem to understand.
Women aren't stupid and I think it is up to the individual woman to decide for herself for what is right for her. This expectation that it is on her to prevent being raped is morbid and obscene. Because that type of ideology results in women living in a state of constant fear, which I don't particularly care how you feel about it, it isn't acceptable. People like you and trooper prattling on about rape prevention as though it is the be all and end all and this expectation that women must adhere to these set rules set down by people like you if she does not want to be raped and the way in which you argue these points is as though to say that if a woman refuses or does not adhere to it, then she must somehow want to be raped. The ultimate goal of the rape prevention ideology some spout in here is to control the behaviour of women.
Is that clear enough for you? Or are you going to lie and twist this around as well to suit the narrative you want to paint of myself and others here?
Most importantly.. Don't assume that women are so stupid that everytime a discussion about misogyny arises, the automatic response has to be to remind women about rape prevention. We're not stupid. You don't need to keep telling us how to behave and live.
Interesting... you think to know me so well that you believe my "understanding of tyrants" comes from a singular book... I am, honestly, quite put off by that statement. You, Marquis, know exactly jack and shit about me and my knowledge; such an assertion on your part is not only factually incorrect, but also incredibly offensive.
My "understanding of tyrants" is limited only by the reading I have done over several years - have I made it a point to study them, and their psychology, specifically? No... but, as such things are an important part of history to know, lest we repeat such mistakes again, I have made it a point to read and understand such information when I come across it.
Then again, you completely and entirely avoided the point of the statement... so I cannot silence this small voice telling me you only make such a claim as a way to discredit me, rather than attacking the argument, simply because you fear the truth of the what I wrote.
- Status