Misogyny, Guns, Rape and Culture..

[Kittamaru]

Geoff- the evidence has been posted and reposted... Capracus quite literally called Bells out for not "doing more" to ensure her own safety.

Please stop trolling for a reaction and get on with whatever point you are after, or I will simply remove you from the thread.

 

[GeoffP]

No... rape "prevention" advice has a time and place... but honestly? It isn't foolproof or fallible...

Infallible. If the incidence of assault by strangers has decreased over a given period, then it is effective to that period and population. Whether it is better than another method is another question. The problem is not to heap on additional 'safety tips' to women out of all proportion to risk - and to reassess whether enough attention is being paid to preventative measures aimed at males. I suspect the latter is largely lacking: though whether there is more or less than, say, Canada is difficult to say.

this is a crime that must be dealt with swiftly and severely... and yet, as a country, our laws are incredibly lax... hell, as of 2000, with the dismissal of the Violence Against Women Act being ruled "unconstitutional" in the United States vs Morrison case... there IS no national standard by which rape is investigated and prosecuted... even stranger still, the FBI's national report on rape doesn't include rape involving male victims NOR non-forcible rape (statutory, domestic without abuse, etc).

Male victim statistics were collected in a 1998-2002 DoJ report I just saw. I didn't find anything on statutory rape but I expect it's also collected. Do you have a link to the FBI reports?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs02.pdf

 

[GeoffP]

Geoff- the evidence has been posted and reposted... Capracus quite literally called Bells out for not "doing more" to ensure her own safety.

Please stop trolling for a reaction and get on with whatever point you are after, or I will simply remove you from the thread.

I have little doubt that you would do so anyway - it would permit a little more damnation without fear of rebuttal. I am not a troll - I am asking to see the evidence that this was his objective opinion, in context, with a link. Moreover, this is being applied, en masse - that means "as a group" - to those arguing that what is being termed "rape prevention" still has a place in society. Failure to comply with such a request is considered, in fact, a violation of SF rules - with which you may be grazingly familiar - and attacking a person's character without support is trolling. I have posted my content above, and that is that. Both sides are arguing past each other and now labels are being handed down that could put SF in hot water. Your position on SF is not "Bells' windvane enforcement representative". If you don't know the difference, ask around. Enough.

 

[GeoffP]

Not by honest posters. Everybody would be in it, so the distinction would be meaningless for them.

Would they? The seeming complete loss of nuance suggests otherwise.

You appear to have mislaid the original context: the question was whether a Canadian woman living in a big city and not locking her front door - and we have, if nothing else, the visual record of Michael Moore walking up to a series of women's front doors and finding them unlocked - is, in the view of a couple of posters here, "irresponsible".

Well we apparently have nothing else despite your claims. As to responsibility, I suggest you read my screed above about the term. It's a split concept.

The followup, which is apparently impossible to even get to, was whether someone recommending Canadian rape prevention approaches (whatever they might be) to American citizens was being irresponsible.

First, we have to know whether they are different. Are they? Is there a heterogeneity among American assault rates that also correlates to the attack rate? That kind of information would be nearly irrefutable proof that the American approach is, flat-out, not working, whatever that approach might be. As it is, I have no idea what the American approach - state, federal - actually is. Are there pamphlets that could be posted, or e-seminars? Is there a way to quantify these differences. A solid finding that there is a difference in effectiveness would be an absolute bombshell and conceivably help millions of people. I'm in deadly earnest here.

________________________________________________________________________

EDIT: An example here: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf

Sexual assault rates as supplied by the Bureau of Justice indicate that the rate of sexual assault in the US declined from an incidence of 1.1/100,000 in 2001 to 0.5/100,000 in 2009 and 0.7/100,000 in 2010. Although they attach a lower confidence to the 2010 numbers, this corresponds to a decline of 48.5% and the 2009 numbers support this general conclusion.

Now this would suggest that the American system is working, right? Which would contradict the supposition of the thread.

... but is that mostly a decline in attacks by relatives, by strangers, or what? What system was in place? When was it begun? What attacks occurred under what state systems? What was the corresponding change in Canadian rates and under what preventative systems? Nothing. Not a freaking scrap that allows you to interpret anything at all. Just: rates down. Nor is there any sign of what each or any system under which any of the attacks occurred was in place. Nothing, no information, that's all, proles.

And that, which I have been alluding to for some time now, is the problem, here and generally.

 

[Kittamaru]

I have little doubt that you would do so anyway - it would permit a little more damnation without fear of rebuttal. I am not a troll - I am asking to see the evidence that this was his objective opinion, in context, with a link. Moreover, this is being applied, en masse - that means "as a group" - to those arguing that what is being termed "rape prevention" still has a place in society. Failure to comply with such a request is considered, in fact, a violation of SF rules - with which you may be grazingly familiar - and attacking a person's character without support is trolling. I have posted my content above, and that is that. Both sides are arguing past each other and now labels are being handed down that could put SF in hot water. Your position on SF is not "Bells' windvane enforcement representative". If you don't know the difference, ask around. Enough.

Evidence against Capracus:

As I remember your rapist was able to enter your home as you slept because your security system failed to alert you. If this man had stolen property or kidnapped one of your children, would you still be satisfied with your admitted inadequate security measures? Which are ultimately whose responsibility?

Capracus blaming Bells for not "securing her home sufficiently".

I don’t assume women to be stupid until they’ve shown themselves to be so. No one’s telling you how to behave or live, only presenting you with alternatives. You’re free to be as informed or ignorant as you please.

Capracus insinuating that Bells is stupid/ignorant for "not having followed advice that would have enabled her to secure her house correctly".

No, I believe it’s unreasonable for someone to expect ideal behavior in society when present conditions do not favor it. Until conditions do favor it, men and women will have to personally and collectively do what they are able to minimize their potential risk.

Capracus saying that it is unreasonable for one to expect to be able to live without fear of being raped.

While we’re on the subject of such epidemics, let’s not forget about infants who rape adults, pets who rape their masters or masters who rape their pets.

Capracus ignoring other situations/types of rape in favor of arguing solely for "stranger rape of the male vs female variety".

Bells admitted in a previous post that her security system failed to detect the brake in. Bells is not responsible for the actions of her attacker, but is responsible for the maintenance of her security system.

Capracus CONTINUING to harp on Bells security system (even though we already know it was a relative who was familiar with said system who committed the act).

Yes, let’s over dramatize the example and equate a sexual assault to becoming a quadriplegic; it’s a wonder half the adult population isn’t paralyzed from the neck down. I would’ve compared it to being the no fault victim in an auto collision who may have compounded their injuries by not wearing seatbelts.

Capracus comparing a rape to a "no-fault accident" and again implicating the victim is somehow guilty of not "doing the right thing" (in this case, wearing a seatbelt)

And that is just from the last few pages...

 

[iceaura]

I perceive neglect, on my part.

OK:

That being said, the counter-argument asserts without statement that people exist who will take advantage of another person in any given situation. Thus, one has a 'responsibility' to (protect) oneself. That is actually statistically true: there are such people fucking everywhere. The world is essentially an evil place

Obscuring the central matters of threat reduction and degree severity and specific crime prevention, the entire topic of the thread and issues under consideration, by posting bullshit about abstract existence/nonexistence of evil in the world, is a waste of bandwidth and an example of bad faith. Not a "counter-argument".

Next, is it the attacker or the victim that is responsible for crime? Well, the attacker, of course. These are questions so clear that the answer is almost tautological: there is no mitigating factor that I can think of that would make sexual assault the fault of any other person but the attacker

OK. Now review the posts of Capracus, Trooper, and the rest of the advocates of rape prevention via women's behavior modification, and see if you can see a real world problem illustrated therein.

But, back on the track of the discussion, it is impossible to imagine any other conclusion but that the attacker is guilty of his or her own crime.

One's imagination is of course one's own to evaluate, but it is not at all impossible to observe (rather than imagine) other people arriving at other conclusions regarding, say, degree of guilt and degree of responsibility and so forth - especially in the situations where a women has "failed to take" what a given evaluator, say a judge or jury or police officer or talk radio host or poster in this thread, considers the expected precautions of a responsible woman.

edit in:

The followup, which is apparently impossible to even get to, was whether someone recommending Canadian rape prevention approaches (whatever they might be) to American citizens was being irresponsible.
First, we have to know whether they are different.

No, we don't.

Now this would suggest that the American system is working, right? Which would contradict the supposition of the thread.

No, and no.

Moreover, this is being applied, en masse - that means "as a group" - to those arguing that what is being termed "rape prevention" still has a place in society.

No, it isn't. It is being applied to those who are arguing that an approach focusing on modification of women's behavior and restrictions on women's lives and constant informed vigilance by women has the central and highest priority place in "rape prevention", so central and fundamental a place as to be synonymous with the term "rape prevention".

I'm beginning to see why you think this thread is some kind of Gordion knot.

 

[GeoffP]

So, because there are no links - again - you're forcing me to read the entire thread in detail.

So thanks for that. Fine.

 

[GeoffP]

I perceive neglect, on my part.

OK: Obscuring the central matters of threat reduction and degree severity and specific crime prevention, the entire topic of the thread and issues under consideration, by posting bullshit about abstract existence/nonexistence of evil in the world, is a waste of bandwidth and an example of bad faith. Not a "counter-argument".

You have no idea of the context or structure of threat reduction and degree severity and specific crime prevention. You have no idea about the simple nature of the false philosophical dilemma. You have no idea about the nature of the systems in place. Yet you feel empowered to comment on them. So, yes, I do see some bad faith here, iceaura.

OK. Now review the posts of Capracus, Trooper, and the rest of the advocates of rape prevention via women's behavior modification, and see if you can see a real world problem illustrated therein.

Oh, certainly. None of you are able to post a hyperlink, apparently, so it appears I must dredge the thread. Well done. New socialism is nothing without your effective indifference and casual preconception.


EDIT: I will restart, probably eat, and then do your work for you. Again.

 

[Kittamaru]

So, because there are no links - again - you're forcing me to read the entire thread in detail.

So thanks for that. Fine.

The links are part of the quote- the little arrow beside the persons name links back to their post (much like how in the old forum design the post number was a link you could click)

I suggest using right-click -> Open new tab (otherwise it actually moves your current page to that link)

 

[billvon]

It is even more accurately used for someone who opposes rape prevention measures that would stop rapes.

Irrelevant. There are no such people as yet visible here (although we haven't begun to discuss rape prevention approaches focused on potential rapist behavior modification, so there's still room for such people to show - and I bet they do, if and when).

While I agree that there is no one here who truly meets the definition of a "rape advocate" it is unfortunately necessary to discuss the term, since some less responsible posters seem to enjoy using it. Hopefully that will stop being an issue.

Irrelevant. The question would be whether anyone has the right to treat those who do not, say, choose to "lock up" or even worry about it much, as in any way irresponsible and failed and so forth, if actually burglarized - talk about them differently, investigate and prosecute the crimes against them differently, etc.

Agreed that they should not be treated differently. They will of course be discussed differently; whether or not someone locks their door has a direct bearing on how easily a criminal comes through it. Thus other homeowners benefit by hearing "his door was unlocked" because they then know that that may have been a factor in the burglary.

That is why the military finds boot camp necessary. You simply can't get through to reactionaries by using words.

Given that this is not boot camp, what's the analogy? Does this mean people here feel they must troll to get a desired emotional response, rather than a rational one?

 

[Bells]

I have little doubt that you would do so anyway - it would permit a little more damnation without fear of rebuttal. I am not a troll - I am asking to see the evidence that this was his objective opinion, in context, with a link. Moreover, this is being applied, en masse - that means "as a group" - to those arguing that what is being termed "rape prevention" still has a place in society. Failure to comply with such a request is considered, in fact, a violation of SF rules - with which you may be grazingly familiar - and attacking a person's character without support is trolling. I have posted my content above, and that is that. Both sides are arguing past each other and now labels are being handed down that could put SF in hot water. Your position on SF is not "Bells' windvane enforcement representative". If you don't know the difference, ask around. Enough.

Then perhaps you should read instead of whining about the moderation and not reading the evidence they present.

Continue in this vein and I will moderate you. I have had enough of the trolls in this thread. It stops here. You can complain that we are not meant to address each other, but when you repeatedly make forays into this thread and comment on a discussion in which I am party to, then I will respond to you if I see fit to do so. And when you repeatedly ask for evidence that you have openly admitted you are refusing to read, then this is nothing short of trolling. If you are incapable of even this level of honesty, then you can read the last 4 pages of this thread for clear evidence of what you are looking for. But continue to ask for evidence that has been quoted and linked specifically for you to read and you openly refuse to read it and keep demanding more, then that sir, is trolling.

Have I made myself clear enough for you now?

 

[GeoffP]

Then perhaps you should read instead of whining about the moderation and not reading the evidence they present.

That was not a suitable answer. I am reading the thread in its entirety. You saw this in my statements above. You are engaging in deceptive argumentation - "bad faith", as one of our neighbours would say. This is against SF rules, as I understand.

Continue in this vein and I will moderate you. I have had enough of the trolls in this thread. It stops here.

Then stop. Stop whining about "rape advocates". Learn some polite forms of address. Stop insisting that those who disagree with you are "rape advocates". Learn patience and discrimination - no, not that kind - between the investigative and the inflamatory.

You can complain that we are not meant to address each other, but when you repeatedly make forays into this thread and comment on a discussion in which I am party to, then I will respond to you if I see fit to do so.

Then decide: you wanted me not to address you. I did not. You attacked me. I responded. You demanded I stop posting, above, at the thread of 'moderation'. I return this: moderate me unethically and I will respond, ethically. Do you understand?

And when you repeatedly ask for evidence that you have openly admitted you are refusing to read

Yes, I saw your uncited list. There were no links. I went back and rechecked it again - no links. NONE. So what evidence is it? Uncited, unsupported. And you have the gall to accuse other people of trolling?

then this is nothing short of trolling. If you are incapable of even this level of honesty, then you can read the last 4 pages of this thread for clear evidence of what you are looking for. But continue to ask for evidence that has been quoted and linked specifically for you to read and you openly refuse to read it and keep demanding more, then that sir, is trolling.

Have I made myself clear enough for you now?

While I agree with your more deferential address here, if I ask for quotes with links, that is not trolling. Kittamaru actually provided links, which I didn't see because the format has changed drastically in the last month. I don't expect you to accept that statement, but then again being familiar with your inventive use of language and logic, I rather doubt it matters.

I am reading this thread and checking Kittamaru's links. Since you cannot address me with equanimity, do not address me. This conversation is done.

 

[GeoffP]

I perceive neglect, on my part.

Indeed you have neglected things: I have found more. I have found enough neglect to keep us in neglect the rest of our lives. It's a Smaug's cache of neglect. No, a hoard of neglect!

edit in:
No, we don't.

Edit in:
Yes, we absolutely and utterly freaking do.

This goes right to the very basis of the process of hypothesis setting and analysis. I've seen a lot of strange things on SF, but this may well take the cake: in order to assign success to the Canadian 'system' - whatever the hell this actually encompasses, and for which you won't post supporting evidence, which I certainly would appreciate. You cannot - CANNOT - simply make such a claim without assigning such success to a source. This is statistics. This is statistical hypothesis setting. This is how we come to know things. I can't believe I'm having this discussion with a grown adult.

Allow me to clarify, just for your edification - no, no: don't retreat into your shell, this is important: You cannot assign success to an effect without even a proximate attempt at a test thereof.

Do you sort of - vaguely - understand that? Effect testing is critical to the logical process. Observation, proposition, experimentation. In this case, since the data has been summarised already, experimentation is reduced to statistical approaches. Effect testing. The effects are essentially demographic and established: the information is already in. We're reduced in this case to post-hoc investigation as to what proposed effects mean to the discussion. This is necessary to make the conclusions that you are attempting to make and which I think are at least partially correct.

No, and no.

"No and no." Wow. And why is that? Well... just "no".

So - so far from an open mind on the subject, even the suggestion - which I immediately falsify for the purposes of demonstration; which is to say that I immediately refute the initial conclusion that the US method is better - that your already-established perspective might be wrong is more than sufficient to just knock you into rote, childish gainsaying. You cannot even entertain the process, leaving aside entirely the possibility (remote, as I see it) that it might turn out to be incorrect, that other factors might account for it. Never mind whether or not other safety-mitigating factors might account for the effect; just "no", because iceaura sez. Wow. If I had not seen this in black and white, I would not have believed it on a science forum.

No, it isn't. It is being applied to those who are arguing that an approach focusing on modification of women's behavior and restrictions on women's lives and constant informed vigilance by women has the central and highest priority place in "rape prevention", so central and fundamental a place as to be synonymous with the term "rape prevention".

That does not make "rape prevention" synonymous with "rape advocate" by the greatest stretch of the functional definition. I thought you refuted this above. Well, what the hell do I know? Iceaura sez 'no'. Then 'yes'. Then 'no' again.

I'm beginning to see why you think this thread is some kind of Gordion knot.

I'm beginning to see why it is. You are lost so badly in the adversarial process that you don't care about the truth. I can't believe I'm having this discussion on what is alleged to be a science forum. Hypothesis testing? Evidentiary process? Fuck no. Iceaura said. So there. Jesus Christ, I don't believe I'm wasting time with this shit.

 

[Bells]

That was not a suitable answer. I am reading the thread in its entirety. You saw this in my statements above. You are engaging in deceptive argumentation - "bad faith", as one of our neighbours would say. This is against SF rules, as I understand.



Then stop. Stop whining about "rape advocates". Learn some polite forms of address. Stop insisting that those who disagree with you are "rape advocates". Learn patience and discrimination - no, not that kind - between the investigative and the inflamatory.



Then decide: you wanted me not to address you. I did not. You attacked me. I responded. You demanded I stop posting, above, at the thread of 'moderation'. I return this: moderate me unethically and I will respond, ethically. Do you understand?



Yes, I saw your uncited list. There were no links. I went back and rechecked it again - no links. NONE. So what evidence is it? Uncited, unsupported. And you have the gall to accuse other people of trolling?



While I agree with your more deferential address here, if I ask for quotes with links, that is not trolling. Kittamaru actually provided links, which I didn't see because the format has changed drastically in the last month. I don't expect you to accept that statement, but then again being familiar with your inventive use of language and logic, I rather doubt it matters.

I am reading this thread and checking Kittamaru's links. Since you cannot address me with equanimity, do not address me. This conversation is done.

I provided links as well. Perhaps you should learn to click on them instead of declaring you are refusing to read them. Just saying.

 

[Bells]

Are you a young woman in the US? Conservative pundits are asking you not to vote, because they think you are incapable of understanding enough to vote..

Fox News is discouraging young people from voting again, but this time the target is more specific: young women.

"The Five" co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle said Tuesday that young women should excuse themselves from voting in the upcoming midterm elections because they don't share the same "life experience" as older women and should just go back to playing around on Tinder and Match.com.

"It's the same reason why young women on juries are not a good idea," Guilfoyle said. "They don't get it!"

Earlier in the conversation, co-host Greg Gutfeld made the point that "with age comes wisdom" and the "older you get, the more conservative you get."

In other words: "Hey kids! Hold off a little. You don't have to vote just yet. Wait until you're conservative enough old enough!"

Guilfoyle agreed, suggesting that you can't cast an informed vote until you've gone through adult things, like paying the bills.

"They're [young women] like healthy and hot and running around without a care in the world," she concluded. "They can go back on Tinder or Match.com."
​

Naw, conservatives don't have a problem with women at all....

Heaven forbid these young women vote on issues that matter to them, such as access to birth control and abortion rights and parental leave rights if they have children and equal pay. Because obviously, young women who are voting on such issues are too stupid to know better.

Misogyny? What's that!?

 

[James R]

This thing about having or not having links...

I can't see any links in posts at the moment unless I mouse over them. They aren't underlined or anything. Perhaps this is the problem.

 

[Bells]

This thing about having or not having links...

I can't see any links in posts at the moment unless I mouse over them. They aren't underlined or anything. Perhaps this is the problem.

Does not mean the links are not there. Even when quoted material has the obvious arrow which is a direct link, that one can hardly be missed and repeated requests for links when they have been provided and even explained where they are provided, then really, this borders on the 'silly' and wasting people's time.

 

[James R]

Does not mean the links are not there.

Of course.

 

[Kittamaru]

Well, admittedly, the links in the quotes are the little arrow beside the name of the person being quoted,rather than an inline URL

 

[iceaura]

You have no idea of the context or structure of threat reduction and degree severity and specific crime prevention.

Either gibberish, or false. I can't tell which. I have an idea of the contents of this thread, which you claim to have read.

You have no idea about the simple nature of the false philosophical dilemma.

I know that your meandering around about philosophical dilemmas in this thread is bullshit.

You have no idea about the nature of the systems in place.

I know what's been posted here. By you, among others.

Yet you feel empowered to comment on them.

On the contents of this thread, yes.

So, yes, I do see some bad faith here, iceaura.

I doubt that. You appear oblivious still, by the evidence.

This goes right to the very basis of the process of hypothesis setting and analysis. I've seen a lot of strange things on SF, but this may well take the cake: in order to assign success to the Canadian 'system' - whatever the hell this actually encompasses, and for which you won't post supporting evidence, which I certainly would appreciate. You cannot - CANNOT - simply make such a claim without assigning such success to a source. This is statistics. This is statistical hypothesis setting. This is how we come to know things. I can't believe I'm having this discussion with a grown adult.

Except, of course, that I never attributed, attempted to assign, or even mentioned, "success" to "the Canadian system". I specifically denied knowledge of it and relevance for it with the perfectly clear reference and dismissal "whatever it may be". The nature of "the Canadian system", if any, was irrelevant to my posting, explicitly, by my claim. I not only made no arguments based on it, which a competent reader in good faith would of course have noticed, but I explicitly and directly stated that the question I was posting had nothing to do with it.

Whatever "the Canadian system" is, and whatever its "success", it performs better - Canadian rape rates are lower than US rates. For all I know, that may be because their "rape prevention" system is a complete failure - unfunded, ignored, without effect, achieving none of its objectives. Judging by the Saudi and US setups, that is a real possibility. But that is not what my posts involve.

I can't see any links in posts at the moment unless I mouse over them. They aren't underlined or anything. Perhaps this is the problem.

That's not geoff's problem. His problem is that nobody is willing to cooperate with his attempts to bullshit the thread.

He can start following arguments and responding in good faith, or he can go pound sand.

For example:

That does not make "rape prevention" synonymous with "rape advocate" by the greatest stretch of the functional definition.

Your continuing attempts to equate "rape prevention" with women's behavior modification will continue to be met with simple denial and stonewalling. After 25 pages revolving around the illegitimacy of that claim and the consequences of that fundamental error, pages you claim to have read, that's no longer something you can simply post.