The Broad Brush? Women and Men; Prejudice and Necessity
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
- Status
I guess... but you know what? That just makes the state the world is in all the sadder and more frustrating.
???
Over the past 25 years I’ve logged over 15 thousand miles hitchhiking—across a few continents and countless countries. I couldn’t even guess how many strangers’ cars I’ve gotten into: A hundred? A few hundred? Who knows? Mostly solo, then with my dog (’94 onwards), and occasionally with a friend or my bicycle (and even with my dog, my bicycle, and my bicycle trailer—when cross-country touring and owing to seriously inclement weather or thruway impassable to peds and cyclists).
I’ve always found this notion that taking rides from strangers is dangerous rather curious and naive, not to mention simply erroneous—for reasons already cited. Who wants to live in a world in which you’ve got to fear those who offer assistance?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Who wants to live in a world in which you’re safer getting into a car with a complete stranger than getting into a car with a dear and trusted friend?
Ditto. I've had several hundred rides with strangers & had trouble a couple times. Serious crimes related to hitchhiking are extremely rare yet when 1 hits the news people act as if it is 1 of the few most dangerous things a person can do. The danger of riding with a stranger is nothing compared to the danger of riding in an automobile anyway.
Who wants to live in a world in which you're safer being a hermit than getting out & participating in society?
See, I've picked people up before... namely if they've broken down, etc.
If I were just randomly walking (say across a mall parking lot) and some random person I didn't know offered me a ride... yeah, i'd find that a bit odd...
There is a difference between being offered assistance when you are broken down or otherwise in some sort of visible distress and having someone try to convince you to hop into their car and take off with you to parts unknown.
Then again, there are some parts of Harrisburg where I wouldn't accept a ride from someone even if I had broken down... so maybe my view has been tainted... *shrug*
Bells
Staff member
A rapist looks like anyone and everyone. He or she does not have to insist that you get into their car, or try to convince you of anything. I find it interesting that you think there is a difference. There isn't. What rape prevention ideology leaves out is that everyone is a potential rapist. Your doctor, your spouse, relatives, friends, teachers, priest, anyone and everyone literally has the potential to be your rapist. The person who stops their car and asks you if you are okay and if you need a hand may not be your rapist. Your rapist could be the taxi driver you hail down, or the road side assistance who helps you fix your car, or the police officer stopping to see if you are okay, the friend you call to come and get you, or any and none of the above. Welcome to the world of common sense for rape prevention where you have absolutely no idea where you are more at risk and where you aren't.
So what do you do if your car breaks down? You're statistically safer with a complete stranger, yet society and rape prevention ideology demands that you need to be responsible and use your common sense and not speak to strangers or ask them for help or even get them to stop to come and help you.. The situation then becomes absolutely impossible. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
And that is the absolute problem.
Everyone scoffs about how they accepted a ride from a stranger. The absolute reality is that they are statistically safer with the stranger than with their boyfriend, partner, friend, etc.. So what are we meant to do?
So they claimed.
While I applaud the effort, I’ve always been skeptical of the Nancy Reagan approach to social reform.
Apparently declaring Just Say No to Rape a success in Vancouver may have been premature.
And in Edmonton where the Don’t Be That Guy campaign originated.
Some men are not sufficiently motivated by such common sense and prefer the risk associated with the role of perpetrator. Because some men are so inclined, women are forced to exercise some common sense rules of their own to maximize their safety.
Who in their right mind would argue against instructing men not to sexually assault women? Who has done so in this thread? It’s not that society isn’t sending the message that rape is wrong; it’s just that some men for various reasons ignore it. The same goes for violent crime in general.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Exactly.
Again, all valid points... unfortunately that does nothing to fix the sad state of affairs such facts leaves our world in
I don't honestly know a good course of action to fix it at this point.
One aspect of the rape issue that is not addressed is the role of women. The female trump card for gaining favor with males is female sex appeal. A pretty/sexy gal who knows how to flirt can open more doors than a brainy gal. Such a gal can get away with things. Many men are linear and will put female sex appeal high on their list of motivating factors. .
This female trump card of sex appeal will not only get her special considerations from the specific male(s) she targets, but will also have an impact on other men in the area, including undesirables. This trump card, when used in public, is more like saturation bombing than pin point accuracy in terms of impact, with lateral impact extending beyond a specific male target. With modern female fashion closer to hookers than nuns, one would expect a cause and effect of enhanced male desire, causing the odds of rape to rise. Abortion is connected to this trump card, since it implies no limits for the trump card. A quick procedure and one is back in the game.
This female induction effect has more impact today, because liberal/atheist morality, taught in school, is relative and not absolute. Based on a relative standard, rape is not rape to all males, under all conditions. That would imply absolute morality, which is not taught as being possible. The impact of relative morality is compounded with liberalism also having opened the moral closet, of formerly taboo behavior, making much of this mainstream. Other things in the closet, like rape, are using the template set forth by that which got out. The dual standard of liberalism has started to backfire, when one claims relative morality and that all forms of sexuality are relative, and then tries to impose an absolute standard for one aspect.
Another aspect of the dynamics can be seen with quota laws, which is another liberal brainstorm that discriminates while accusing others of the crime. Males who never did anything wrong, are guilty by this law, for something someone else may have done. It discriminates against males while accusing them of something that has nothing to do with them. One is dealing with irrational criminals in positions of power. If you apply that irrational quota standard to rape, males will always be falsely accused, just for being a male, by the way the irrational dual standard is set up. This will have an impact on rape. Falsely accusing people o anything, will begin to induce the very thing that one thinks they are doing away with.
This female trump card of sex appeal will not only get her special considerations from the specific male(s) she targets, but will also have an impact on other men in the area, including undesirables. This trump card, when used in public, is more like saturation bombing than pin point accuracy in terms of impact, with lateral impact extending beyond a specific male target. With modern female fashion closer to hookers than nuns, one would expect a cause and effect of enhanced male desire, causing the odds of rape to rise. Abortion is connected to this trump card, since it implies no limits for the trump card. A quick procedure and one is back in the game.
This female induction effect has more impact today, because liberal/atheist morality, taught in school, is relative and not absolute. Based on a relative standard, rape is not rape to all males, under all conditions. That would imply absolute morality, which is not taught as being possible. The impact of relative morality is compounded with liberalism also having opened the moral closet, of formerly taboo behavior, making much of this mainstream. Other things in the closet, like rape, are using the template set forth by that which got out. The dual standard of liberalism has started to backfire, when one claims relative morality and that all forms of sexuality are relative, and then tries to impose an absolute standard for one aspect.
Another aspect of the dynamics can be seen with quota laws, which is another liberal brainstorm that discriminates while accusing others of the crime. Males who never did anything wrong, are guilty by this law, for something someone else may have done. It discriminates against males while accusing them of something that has nothing to do with them. One is dealing with irrational criminals in positions of power. If you apply that irrational quota standard to rape, males will always be falsely accused, just for being a male, by the way the irrational dual standard is set up. This will have an impact on rape. Falsely accusing people o anything, will begin to induce the very thing that one thinks they are doing away with.
Bells
Staff member
I'm sure GeoffP will agree with you.
However, what of the children, and elderly who are raped? Are you going to suggest that an 8 month old girl has sex appeal? I get it, you are just telling us that men like you like dumb women who just look pretty and that is all you want. I would, however, suggest that you don't apply your personal standards to all.
I understand that your mating rituals may involve bright red backsides and scenting of your fellow baboons, but we are talking about people.
Are you suggesting that a woman's "sex appeal" is what draws her rapist? What if she is raped by the men she supposedly knows and trusts? What of the children and elderly? Do you think they have sex appeal as well? How about males?
Once again, just a reminder.. This is a discussion about human interaction with other humans. This is not a discussion about your tribe of baboons visual and spraying displays in public.
Firstly, nuns are also rape victims. Secondly, how a woman dresses is not an invitation to rape. Nor does it mean she is asking for it. I understand, you believe that a woman's clothing is like a flash card invitation for you to rape her, but it is not. I would suggest you look at the absolute look of disgust and revulsion on her face for a better indication of what she actually wants and is thinking about when you speak to her. I would imagine it is pretty similar to the look that appeared on my face when I read your post. Thirdly, a woman's dress has nothing to do with being raped. As for abortion, what exactly does this have to do with this subject?
Wellwisher, when a woman says no, is unconscious or incapacitated and unable to say yes or no to you, when she is screaming, crying, trying to get away from you, it's not an indication that she wants you to have sex with her.
Do you understand this?
I mean sure, there may be some backward arsed baboon out there who does not understand or respect a woman enough to not rape her, especially after she has made it clear or circumstances dictate that it is clear that she does not want to have sex with him, but that is hardly an excuse for this backward fuck-knuckle to rape her. Just because he doesn't understand that no means no does not mean that it's not rape.
No. That would imply the understanding that not all women are whores and with whom you are entitled to fuck. But I do understand how and why this is a difficult concept for you to grasp.
And you managed to bring in your homophobia as well. I'm impressed.
Indeed. I understand your concern that women have rights. After all, heaven forbid the females you have chained up in your man-cave ever think that they could have rights. Damn liberalism opening up that moral closet!
I'm guessing you miss the good old days when women were just chattels for you to own and rape was not illegal, but expected?
Poor you.
Considering how few rapists even make it into a court room, let alone charged or heaven forbid, imprisoned, I would say the quote is working very well in favour of rapists and not their victims.
We were talking about campus rape when I was accused of being a rape advocate. Wait-wait a minute…no, we were talking about atheism and abortion when Bells accused me of being a sadist.
Nevertheless, Steven Pinker’s remark, which I defended was about campus rape. Political correctness should not trump common sense and good judgement.
Teenagers don’t actually feel invincible. They are risk takers because they overvalue the reward. They respond more strongly to social rewards.
"Selection is hell on dysfunctional traits. If adolescence is essentially a collection of them—angst, idiocy, and haste; impulsiveness, selfishness, and reckless bumbling—then how did those traits survive selection?
Teens take more risks not because they don't understand the dangers but because they weigh risk versus reward differently: In situations where risk can get them something they want, they value the reward more heavily than adults do."
When a woman is raped at a frat party it is obviously NOT her fault, but there is nothing wrong with telling her that there are things she can do to limit her vulnerability.
It's as if Bells and Tiassa are promoting risk-taking behaviors with the belief that fairness should trump common sense. The boys get totally hammered, why not girls?
When in fact, neither males nor females should be getting totally plastered. It reduces a female’s ability to be assertive and it lowers a male’s ability to act responsibly. No ifs, ands, or buts, drugs and alcohol facilitate sexual assault. They do!
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/teenage-brains/dobbs-text
http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/media/journal/118-abbey.pdf
Nevertheless, Steven Pinker’s remark, which I defended was about campus rape. Political correctness should not trump common sense and good judgement.
Teenagers don’t actually feel invincible. They are risk takers because they overvalue the reward. They respond more strongly to social rewards.
"Selection is hell on dysfunctional traits. If adolescence is essentially a collection of them—angst, idiocy, and haste; impulsiveness, selfishness, and reckless bumbling—then how did those traits survive selection?
Teens take more risks not because they don't understand the dangers but because they weigh risk versus reward differently: In situations where risk can get them something they want, they value the reward more heavily than adults do."
When a woman is raped at a frat party it is obviously NOT her fault, but there is nothing wrong with telling her that there are things she can do to limit her vulnerability.
It's as if Bells and Tiassa are promoting risk-taking behaviors with the belief that fairness should trump common sense. The boys get totally hammered, why not girls?
When in fact, neither males nor females should be getting totally plastered. It reduces a female’s ability to be assertive and it lowers a male’s ability to act responsibly. No ifs, ands, or buts, drugs and alcohol facilitate sexual assault. They do!
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/teenage-brains/dobbs-text
http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/media/journal/118-abbey.pdf
Bells
Staff member
Correction. This was after you commented on who would not agree with abortions after having met me. In short, who would not want me to not exist after having met me. And once again, you are seen to be a rape advocate because of your comments about rape, women, and Elliot Rodger which literally had your little heart fluttering with excitement and making every excuse you could while blaming women.
Steven Pinker is a bore and a misogynistic one at that. His comments about how women dress and rape, and how she dresses may invite rape. In this day and age, how anyone can believe such ridiculous notions is beyond me. To classify it as he does, he places the responsibility and the blame on women. In other words, Pinker literally argues that it is the woman's responsibility to not be raped. Which, frankly, is obscene.
The issue with Pinker's version of good judgement is that not only does he provide the wrong advice, he also fails to advise that a woman is more likely to be raped by her intimate partner in her home. Which is the issue with rape prevention advocacy. It creates this safe haven and belief that a woman is safe with the people she knows. She isn't. You often hear women say 'I did everything right'. In short, she's bought into the utter bullshit spouted by moronic rape prevention sites and advocates and then she finds herself raped by someone she knows and trusts. Rape prevention advocacy is pratronising and controlling. It's not telling women anything new. It is merely placing the onus on women to prevent herself from being raped in a situation where she is least likely to be raped. There is absolutely no onus placed on the rapist to not rape. There is no educational campaign for college aged students to not sexually assault or rape. Instead, the onus is placed squarely on women, telling them to behave a certain way, dress a certain way, speak a certain way, to avoid being raped.
It is trying to force women and girls into this neat little box, where she can be controlled with threats of sexual violence if she does not comply. Which is essentially what Pinker advocates. Controlling women with threats of violence if she fails to meet this standard for behaviour.. Dress a certain way, speak a certain way, don't go out a lone, don't drink, don't go out to parties with lots of men.. Might as well move to Saudi Arabia. I hear they are big fans of such limitations and restrictions on women. Supposedly to not tempt men. And guess what, women are still raped there as well. So it can't be dress, it can't be alcohol since they don't drink, they don't go out to parties with men - since it's illegal for them to go out and mingle with unrelated males. They don't drive. They don't walk down the street at night by themselves (or in the daytime for that matter).
Well duh!
How about we just teach our teenage children to not rape? To not view other people as mere objects?
And what if she's raped at home?
College rape numbers are high because most of these women are raped by men they know and/or are involved in. So how do you tell a woman to limit her vulnerability with her long time or even new lover?
No. Rape prevention advocacy promotes and endangers more women than I do. Because what that does is create a false sense of security for women. They even tell these women and girls to only go home with the people they know, without telling them that they are more likely to be raped by the people they know.
Then tell men to stop drinking so they stop raping..
After all, if the idea is to prevent rape, impose legal limits on drinking, so they rape less. In fact, why not raise the legal age to consume alcohol to 35 and in that time, enforce stringent educational courses to educate men about the danger they are to women when they are drunk? And once they are 35, impose severe restrictions on their access to alcohol - smaller bottles, national database so that they can only purchase a set amount of alcohol a day.. And if they have a criminal record, especially one from the result of a violent crime, they are banned from being allowed to access alcohol. The same would also apply for women, so it's fair and balanced.
If we are to prevent rape, then target the rapists and not their potential victims. If you really wanted to stop men in college from raping, then you'd be pushing for denying them access to alcohol entirely.
I’ve been scanning back and forth on this thread and since my input is being requested, I’ll synthesize a general conclusion based on individual comments and the general hypothesis.
“Not all men” in the way in which I used it was – for a change – actually based in what you’d call the ego. Generalisation, generally, is thought ill of on SF; no one particularly likes to be generalised and there seemed to be a certain laziness in differentiation. I don’t think I’d make much of a talking point about it, since its employment as a nullification of your newest acronym actually would depend on speaker and circumstance, neither of which are warranted in this case. “It is not” from the link refers, as I think should be clear, to the act of generalisation, not your critique of the apparent hashtag debate, which was not in evidence.
No Venn overlap would place “not me” men as being completely coincident with “not men” men, which is what you allude to with “But those generalizations help men get away with rape get righteously and properly laid, apparently, so that's okay ...” It would be difficult to conclude that every male objecting to the generalization is secretly plotting something, consciously or unconsciously.
Well, getting a statistician in is always a good idea. The fact of the case of course is that no person particularly knows what any other person might do to them, within reasonable expectations.
That has nothing to do with an ego objection to the generalisation. It merely presupposes underhandedness, until the final sentence. I know, I know: males have no feelings to insult, unlike women, who are being inferred as stupid by campaigns that address minimising female risk.
Is it? As many as two of three women are not assaulted. Given that proportion, it’s pretty reasonable to think that a sizeable portion of those men complaining “not all men” are those not protecting a nebulous sexual franchise of some kind, but the actual article. As to the political aspects of the claim antagonistic to yours, I leave those to you: not of a sense of ulterior motive, but because I don’t know what their goals, if any, are, nor who is projecting them in this fashion. You might find “Not all men” to be not at all helpful, but there needs to be some engagement from the good “not all men”, and this is the way in which it’s done. Generalised statements can be accurate and useful without being offensive and inferring unconscious conspiracy. Something as simple as “it’s not on their radar because it doesn’t affect them directly and negatively” (which is the essential human condition, seemingly) is probably sufficient and accurate. Surely the refrain from using it is not because it seems stale?
I don’t think you’d find anyone who would argue with such a demand.
Me. You. And neither of us. As in all things – and as distinct from the issues , relative risk rate is something we calculate according to circumstance.
Comments of the kind:
(there were others but I’ve got things to do myself – Geoff)
- is a needless slagging, perhaps. Of course women are attacked at a higher rate by those they know; but consider the existence of any individual with a randomized predilection to assault (for whatever reasons, or even of a completely randomized function of likelihood across all men with no causative agents whatsoever). His ability to carry out such an attack is then a function of exposure and opportunity, and that does mean women are exposed and at risk by their relationships. Some men plan such attacks, which weighs more strongly in the category of “acquaintances”.
But compare those frequencies to attacks by strangers. What is the average exposure of a given woman to strangers or vice-versa, if you prefer, such that opportunity for attack exists? Surely such exposure must be low. The question of the relative incidence or probability must be balanced against overall exposure: any given person of either sex will be in contact with those that they know the vast majority of the time. Including coworkers and family members, surely any randomly selected person must be around such people an overwhelming majority of the time. Summed across average commute times, a working woman is around strangers maybe two to three hours a day in extremis; practically speaking, I think that would be lower. For a mother at home, it’s harder to say: possibly more, since there is the possibility of ‘alone time’ during the day when one might encounter more strangers (being personally on-site for delivery services, external activities, etc.).
Giving an uninterrupted sleep period (excluded from summation for either the ‘stranger present’ and ‘acquaintance’ case, which is actually almost certainly an underestimate of the latter) of six hours, that still leaves a margin of something like fifteen hours in the presence of acquaintances against three in that of strangers (a 5:1 ratio), which again is probably an underestimate for the ‘acquaintance’ category. The rate of attacks though is only 2:1 acquaintance:stranger. On the absolute scale, the risk is the same, but on the scale of exposure or ‘opportunity’, the relative risk from strangers is clearly higher, since women are still attacked at much lower exposure rates even under what I think is a very liberal estimate, above. Strangers – and we have to assume that any given stranger is as likely to sexually assault another human being as acquaintances, unless we come from a particularly privileged group of acquaintances – have limited opportunity. It’s a disservice and connected to the ‘not “not all men”’ trope above to make conclusions about the nature of these people that come across as hyperbolic. Female interaction is risky, but are acquaintances really the ‘bad guys’ or a sampling of all possible guys with greater opportunity? Or would you really accept a ride from a stranger over that of someone you knew?
There are a great many things wrong with society. Not everything on the list – of whatever list, probably – is alarmism, and neither is it all accurate. I think that the dim sensation of some kind of incident stranger risk against the accrued risk of ongoing association might also be an explanation for the existence of such lists: are those emitting them involved in social services, as you and Bells clearly are, or associated with reactionary political think-tanks? Naturally, you’d say they suffered from social blindness on the issue. Are they simply unintrospective themselves? Or does the practical application of ‘IPA’ spring from the non-existence of a more systematic infrastructure to apply the “How not to rape” social prod to men in general? Who is really to blame? The “not all men” men?
Reminders of social inequities and the predilection to exploit – leaving aside the issue that the poster is intended to satirize the current range of reminders of female vulnerability states – are probably as useful as the latter, real-world-wise, and therefore of equivalent good. It’s the concept of the latter, not the content, that is objectionable. Naturally I don’t think one could object to a more applied prevention of male violence early on by taking the satire out of the poster and addressing male exploitation in young males and as Tiassa and Bells point out that this is not and has never been done, of course one approves. But an expression of risks to either sex is not inherently bad. I don’t think you’re actually arguing this, but I think it has not gotten across completely. (See below.)
I think, in general, that the aims of the argument would be better served by clarification of your alternate to the measures currently being aimed only at women, instead of the surely artful but needlessly derivative colloquial. Like it or not, it’s that that tunes out the good “not all men” men with the bad “not all men” men; and anyway, isn’t the object to make the argument apparent?
Discussing through the issues: as you already know, because of an unconscious or unstated appreciation of relative risk rate between the sexes. Your risks differ because of the different ways in which males and females encounter societal risks and are perceived, targets and offenders alike. The ‘functional’ side is that females are attacked more often. But the important point, obviously, is this:
Indeed. I doubt that those who propose ‘IPA’ alone are not attempting to perpetuate these risks indefinitely, but have not considered the alternatives – or would be receptive to a clearer statement of them, at least on this forum. ‘Reminding women they’re stupid’ in that same sense is no different than posting a high-voltage warning sign on a transformer: we know it’s a dangerous place to fly our kites, but maybe a reminder would not go amiss to the individual.
Tiassa said:
“Not all men” in the way in which I used it was – for a change – actually based in what you’d call the ego. Generalisation, generally, is thought ill of on SF; no one particularly likes to be generalised and there seemed to be a certain laziness in differentiation. I don’t think I’d make much of a talking point about it, since its employment as a nullification of your newest acronym actually would depend on speaker and circumstance, neither of which are warranted in this case. “It is not” from the link refers, as I think should be clear, to the act of generalisation, not your critique of the apparent hashtag debate, which was not in evidence.
No Venn overlap would place “not me” men as being completely coincident with “not men” men, which is what you allude to with “But those generalizations help men get away with rape get righteously and properly laid, apparently, so that's okay ...” It would be difficult to conclude that every male objecting to the generalization is secretly plotting something, consciously or unconsciously.
Well, getting a statistician in is always a good idea. The fact of the case of course is that no person particularly knows what any other person might do to them, within reasonable expectations.
That has nothing to do with an ego objection to the generalisation. It merely presupposes underhandedness, until the final sentence. I know, I know: males have no feelings to insult, unlike women, who are being inferred as stupid by campaigns that address minimising female risk.
Is it? As many as two of three women are not assaulted. Given that proportion, it’s pretty reasonable to think that a sizeable portion of those men complaining “not all men” are those not protecting a nebulous sexual franchise of some kind, but the actual article. As to the political aspects of the claim antagonistic to yours, I leave those to you: not of a sense of ulterior motive, but because I don’t know what their goals, if any, are, nor who is projecting them in this fashion. You might find “Not all men” to be not at all helpful, but there needs to be some engagement from the good “not all men”, and this is the way in which it’s done. Generalised statements can be accurate and useful without being offensive and inferring unconscious conspiracy. Something as simple as “it’s not on their radar because it doesn’t affect them directly and negatively” (which is the essential human condition, seemingly) is probably sufficient and accurate. Surely the refrain from using it is not because it seems stale?
I don’t think you’d find anyone who would argue with such a demand.
Me. You. And neither of us. As in all things – and as distinct from the issues , relative risk rate is something we calculate according to circumstance.
Comments of the kind:
(there were others but I’ve got things to do myself – Geoff)
- is a needless slagging, perhaps. Of course women are attacked at a higher rate by those they know; but consider the existence of any individual with a randomized predilection to assault (for whatever reasons, or even of a completely randomized function of likelihood across all men with no causative agents whatsoever). His ability to carry out such an attack is then a function of exposure and opportunity, and that does mean women are exposed and at risk by their relationships. Some men plan such attacks, which weighs more strongly in the category of “acquaintances”.
But compare those frequencies to attacks by strangers. What is the average exposure of a given woman to strangers or vice-versa, if you prefer, such that opportunity for attack exists? Surely such exposure must be low. The question of the relative incidence or probability must be balanced against overall exposure: any given person of either sex will be in contact with those that they know the vast majority of the time. Including coworkers and family members, surely any randomly selected person must be around such people an overwhelming majority of the time. Summed across average commute times, a working woman is around strangers maybe two to three hours a day in extremis; practically speaking, I think that would be lower. For a mother at home, it’s harder to say: possibly more, since there is the possibility of ‘alone time’ during the day when one might encounter more strangers (being personally on-site for delivery services, external activities, etc.).
Giving an uninterrupted sleep period (excluded from summation for either the ‘stranger present’ and ‘acquaintance’ case, which is actually almost certainly an underestimate of the latter) of six hours, that still leaves a margin of something like fifteen hours in the presence of acquaintances against three in that of strangers (a 5:1 ratio), which again is probably an underestimate for the ‘acquaintance’ category. The rate of attacks though is only 2:1 acquaintance:stranger. On the absolute scale, the risk is the same, but on the scale of exposure or ‘opportunity’, the relative risk from strangers is clearly higher, since women are still attacked at much lower exposure rates even under what I think is a very liberal estimate, above. Strangers – and we have to assume that any given stranger is as likely to sexually assault another human being as acquaintances, unless we come from a particularly privileged group of acquaintances – have limited opportunity. It’s a disservice and connected to the ‘not “not all men”’ trope above to make conclusions about the nature of these people that come across as hyperbolic. Female interaction is risky, but are acquaintances really the ‘bad guys’ or a sampling of all possible guys with greater opportunity? Or would you really accept a ride from a stranger over that of someone you knew?
There are a great many things wrong with society. Not everything on the list – of whatever list, probably – is alarmism, and neither is it all accurate. I think that the dim sensation of some kind of incident stranger risk against the accrued risk of ongoing association might also be an explanation for the existence of such lists: are those emitting them involved in social services, as you and Bells clearly are, or associated with reactionary political think-tanks? Naturally, you’d say they suffered from social blindness on the issue. Are they simply unintrospective themselves? Or does the practical application of ‘IPA’ spring from the non-existence of a more systematic infrastructure to apply the “How not to rape” social prod to men in general? Who is really to blame? The “not all men” men?
Bells said:
Reminders of social inequities and the predilection to exploit – leaving aside the issue that the poster is intended to satirize the current range of reminders of female vulnerability states – are probably as useful as the latter, real-world-wise, and therefore of equivalent good. It’s the concept of the latter, not the content, that is objectionable. Naturally I don’t think one could object to a more applied prevention of male violence early on by taking the satire out of the poster and addressing male exploitation in young males and as Tiassa and Bells point out that this is not and has never been done, of course one approves. But an expression of risks to either sex is not inherently bad. I don’t think you’re actually arguing this, but I think it has not gotten across completely. (See below.)
I think, in general, that the aims of the argument would be better served by clarification of your alternate to the measures currently being aimed only at women, instead of the surely artful but needlessly derivative colloquial. Like it or not, it’s that that tunes out the good “not all men” men with the bad “not all men” men; and anyway, isn’t the object to make the argument apparent?
Discussing through the issues: as you already know, because of an unconscious or unstated appreciation of relative risk rate between the sexes. Your risks differ because of the different ways in which males and females encounter societal risks and are perceived, targets and offenders alike. The ‘functional’ side is that females are attacked more often. But the important point, obviously, is this:
Indeed. I doubt that those who propose ‘IPA’ alone are not attempting to perpetuate these risks indefinitely, but have not considered the alternatives – or would be receptive to a clearer statement of them, at least on this forum. ‘Reminding women they’re stupid’ in that same sense is no different than posting a high-voltage warning sign on a transformer: we know it’s a dangerous place to fly our kites, but maybe a reminder would not go amiss to the individual.
Trooper said:
I just did.
Yeah, you're not too bright, are you? :bugeye:
I have to know, though. Are you and Tiassa deliberately impersonating Seth and Amy?
No ifs, ands, or buts...
Subjective
All men are disgusting animals.
Objective
All men are animals.
Does (ding-a-ling!) make sense as an onomatopoeia?
Ah, so there we have it, the moral of the thread is facetiousness or sarcasm can start a flame war. Why? Because Bells is a ding-a-ling.
But after all is said and done, I really am sorry to hear that you were hurt and I do sincerely hope you feel better soon.
Take care of yourself, Bells
Ciao
Bells said:
Ah, so there we have it, the moral of the thread is facetiousness or sarcasm can start a flame war. Why? Because Bells is a ding-a-ling.
But after all is said and done, I really am sorry to hear that you were hurt and I do sincerely hope you feel better soon.
Take care of yourself, Bells
Ciao
Beyond the tribe or the village, the functioning of society is entirely dependent upon placing trust in strangers: it's pretty damn easy to break into a car and hotwire it--fortunately, most people don't and won't do it for a multitude of reasons; injecting foods in a market with potassium cyanide is also not terribly difficult--again, most people don't.
Further, I've (somehow) only gotten the crap beaten out of me twice in my adult lifetime. Both times the assailants were cops. The first time I was having a seizure--something which every other witness managed to figure out. The second time... I had actually called the cops to report a drunken and violent neighbor. As it turned out, the cop who came to our "assistance" happened to be a friend of the drunken prick, and he also had a drug (steroids) and anger management problem. This time, I only seized after the incident--and far more often than usual for the subsequent three months, as the fucking piece of shit cop literally bashed my head (against the sidewalk) and caused me a concussion.
To me, getting into a stranger's car is no different than trusting that my food has not been poisoned. In many parts of the world, and even parts of the U.S., it's still a fairly common mode of transportation.
- Status