"When it comes to a woman's right to walk unharmed through a city street, our understanding takes a nose dive."
He is talking about you.
notice how there are no solutions forthcoming from either you or anything you link. I mean at the very lest, its a mixed message ... what are they trying to say? That the streets are now safe because rapists are officially responsible now? Or is it like a calling for women to go on some sort of strike by dismissing whatever precautions they might otherwise take until certain changes are met?
.
I mean they say educate men not to rape. Fine (While you are at it you also might want to educate people to stop stealing or parallel parking or whatever else too ...) However its the nature of being a criminal that one has a sort of intelligence that not only
already knows the act is wrong, but also uses that knowledge of the acts wrongness in an attempt to evade coming before the law.
To put it simply, when an individual knowingly does something wrong, that becomes an act that is incredibly difficult to correct.
Aside from saying rape is bad and rapists are bad, how does this attitude actually pave the way for improvement?
I mean its the nature of falling victim to
any crime, that the experience violates your rights. That's probably the number one reason we have a justice system.
Which is why I said in my initial response:
IOW if you have a situation where there are individuals with something of value and individuals who covet it (especially in the landscape of the unmitigated pursuit of personal desire) , a generous swath of "practical advice" is about potential victims and prevention.[/I]
All you can do is link articles about people being angry about the state of affairs. You say we need more "education" on the subject as if social engineering is as straight forward as car mechanics.
IOW you have nothing practical offer to offer aside from what to do if you become a victim.
In the total, complete absence of there being
any practical model forthcoming from what you advocate, what else can a person do but take recourse to preventative measures?
IOW if you actually want to progress this discussion, try talking about
how you plan to make men more responsible or
ways you wish to educate them about their responsibility.
(and I don't mean statements so vague they are effectively meaningless eg - "teach them to respect woman's rights").
IOW if you
really want to do away with the pre-existing standard of practical measures people utilize in this scenario, you have to
actually come to the party.
Because intelligent people who understand do not equate rape with car theft and advise that if you put a lock on your car to help prevent car theft, then women should just take precautions to prevent being raped.
as I said
And before you go on a tirade about equating a women's body to a car, the similarity is simply when you have a perpetrator looking for an "easy target" (regardless whether the object is rape, theft, fraud or murder) , you also have concomitant factors that establish a "victim".
IOW
before you go such a tirade, you should actually explain why ignoring/dismissing the criteria of a victim a perpetrator is actively seeking constitutes an intelligent path.
It isn't a woman's responsibility to prevent being raped.
Nevertheless, if she does get raped, she is the one who bears the consequences ... much like you can also say it is not your responsibility to prevent your car getting stolen
and that's why rapists commonly go to jail ... and even why rapists (or indeed any criminal) act in such a manner to avoid the likelihood of going to jail (which also plays a considerable part in their criteria for an easy target)
For example:
Our society teaches young women “don’t get raped,” with ominous warnings instructing them on the ways in which they should go about the world. We teach young women to avoid the night, darkness and unfamiliar spaces all in misguided efforts to keep them safe.
The price of this message is female autonomy. And safety.
Because as women and girls travel the world charged with the ridiculous task to make themselves somehow less rape-able, our society continues to validate rape culture through its men and boys.
You are going to have to explain that.
If active awareness of risk factors for an incident render it more viable/common/acceptable or whatever, then clearly whatever education hopes you have ambitions for are doomed to fail.
IOW if you apply the general principles you are advocating to the broader picture of safety, crime and or injury, you can see how totally absurd you are sounding
Nestled in our cultural understandings of what it means to be men is a permissive credo that “boys will be boys,” authorizing inappropriate sexual behavior at an early age, while failing to hold men accountable for their actions and urges.
And the best way to deal with this is to abruptly suspend whatever precautions one might otherwise take to avoid becoming a victim of such persons?
This is essentially your stance. Because as you claimed earlier,you believe
it is absurd to expect a rapist to not rape.
and why is it absurd?
I guess we will have to take a look at the bit you conveniently edited out :
IOW if you have a situation where there are individuals with something of value and individuals who covet it (especially in the landscape of the unmitigated pursuit of personal desire) , a generous swath of "practical advice" is about potential victims and prevention.
Your car has value, your children have value, your house has value, your health has value, your job has value, your country has value, your bicycle has value, your pets have value - and all of these people, associates and assets are accompanied by steps individuals take to protect them from harm/misappropriation by third parties
ontop of whatever legal penalties an individual accrues from encroaching on the said persons lifestyle.
Yet for some reason when the topic of rape comes up you declare this straight forward forumula of criminology not only fails to work in tandem, but is in fact diametrically opposed. .
You strongly advocate that they dismiss all such precautions because a rapist is bad and its obviously their responsibility not to rape you.
My question is this - if a person is intent to treat you or your property maliciously,
why on earth would you rest your well being on their capacity to act responsibly?
IOW the
very moment a person engages in a criminal act against you is the moment they have no or a diminished regard for your well being.
And instead, you put the onus on the woman to not be raped by talking about rape prevention and what a woman should do to avoid being raped.
Once again, how does advocating taking precautions against falling victim to a crime somehow endear one to the criminal element that is performing the act?
It seems to me that your real gripe is the having stiffer legislation or more severe prosecution of rapists ( I assume that's what you mean by making them more "responsible"). Its as if you believe the act of an individual taking precautions somehow siphons away from the capacity of society to engineer the consequences you want on the criminal element that performs the act.
I can't understand why you think this.
You are a part of the absurd problem regarding rape in a civilised society. Your rape prevention spiel amounts to making excuses for rapists because you believe that it is up to the woman to avoid being raped.
Once again, acknowledging the risk factors of crime, far from making excuses for the criminal, engenders a path of practical prevention.
Your attempt to attribute attitudes and beliefs to my person that i don't have is just a political attempt to sensationalize the topic outside the realms of rational discussion.
And you try to justify your position by comparing it to car theft and how one would insure and protect one's car, so women should somehow prevent and avoid being raped.
In case you haven't noticed, holding car thieves legally accountable
and individuals taking precautions works in tandem. There is no sane argument offered by anyone to the effect that anti-car-theft precautions and legal persecution of thieves are incompatible ... what to speak of labeling them as diametrically opposed. ... And once again, its not a case of them "somehow" preventing it. Its about looking at the data surrounding a perpetrator's choice of an "easy target" and forming a preventative model around such information.
I guess Tiassa is used to dealing with intelligent people who can read and for whom, reading is not an issue.
If that was the case, he would also respond to people who sort through his posts and respond at the same ratio.
Its clear that he dislikes having to slough through waffle as much as the next person.
What is telling in your whine is that instead of discussing the points he is raising, you are instead choosing to whine about the amount of words he has used. What this usually indicates is that you have nothing to counter it, so you think you can get off by simply complaining about the length of his response to you.
It just means I simply didn't read anything he has to say ... much like he also doesn't read what someone says when they respond at the same ratio
I mean sure, he could dismiss you and treat you like an idiot by using 5 words.
which of course he did do ... which of course was the other extreme of ineffective communication
Would you prefer to be treated like a simpleton that he has to reduce his posts down to 5 words because you don't have the attention span to read more than that?
I would prefer that he post like any other person on a forum and not like its his blog.
If it also pains him to attempt a response to long winded posts, he should show a simple courtesy and act like he wishes to be treated
See, I don't think it's the length of the posts that bother you. It is the content and because you have nothing to counter it without sounding even more like a misogynist, you prefer to divert attention away and whine about the length of his post. And I have to say, it isn't paying off for you. But nice try.
as I said, until he learns to curb this bad habit of his, people in general will just skim whatever he says or ignore it completely