Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-14-2019, 08:25 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655

Is stating "Women can change their behavior to lessen their chance of sexual assault" misogynistic?


Based on recent ATMB threads and various warnings, and the fact that posters seem to think that posting a contrary opinion on certain topics won't automatically get a warning, I would like to see if basics facts, when posted as a legitimate, sincerely held belief, can actually get a discussion going.

In the recent past, my statement that "If a woman just stayed at home, locked in her bedroom wearing a burka, it would significantly lower her chances of being assaulted" was deemed "racist and misogynistic"

Can a factual statement be considered "racist and misogynistic"? That seems strange to me. Sure, arguing that in ATMB wasn't the best choice of venues, but the addition of "racist and misogynistic" to my warning annoys me, since I'm not racist nor misogynistic. (not arguing the mod decisions here)

So my statement was posted as a "could" and not a "should". I, in no way, shape, or form, suggest, imply, recommend, or believe that a woman should alter her behavior to avoid sexual assault. But it seems disingenuous to say, as Banquet Bear did, that it is not possible for a woman to lessen her chances of assault by altering her behavior. Everyone can lesson their chances of adverse consequences by altering their behavior. Seems strange to me that this one thing should be any different.
  #2  
Old 07-14-2019, 08:43 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,663
People feel blamed when you say that they could/should have done something differently. If you were hit by a car while crossing the street, at the crosswalk, during a green light, and everyone starts asking, "But did you look both ways? Are you sure you weren't drinking? Maybe you shouldn't have been out talking with friends." Well, that's annoying and largely misses the point that you had fair reason to believe that crossing the street at the crosswalk, when given the go signal, should be a safe activity. And, certainly, being told that "you could just stay indoors with one of those inflatable sumo outfits on and this wouldn't be something you would ever really need to worry about again" isn't a particularly useful thing to say and the person who says it probably just deserves getting slapped.

But yes, it is true and yes there are things that people could do to be more safe. that doesn't make them guilty of anything or wrong in any way. They do have a reasonable expectation that they should be able to live without having to act like a giant target for ill-doers and it is entirely the fault of the ill-doer for doing ill.

But, your reasons for telling them what they could do differently could be anything from excessive logicalness to the exclusion of the fact that you're simply being annoying by making true but impractical and silly suggestions or, frequently, that you're being patronizing or sexist and think that the person really needs to be told this information by you, the greatest mind ever born with two testicles attached to it.*

Personally, as the logical sort, I'd vote that it's probably more useful to stop going to places where people are drinking to socialize - humanity will figure out a way to chat and move things to the next stage (whichever direction that's going to go), you don't actually need liquor to facilitate it - but useful advice is worse than useless advice, so far as people are generally concerned.

* Not addressed to the OP, I'm just listing out personality types.
  #3  
Old 07-14-2019, 08:51 PM
Beckdawrek's Avatar
Beckdawrek is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: So.Ark ?
Posts: 16,112
I kinda see your point. I mean, if I never get in the ocean I'll never be eaten by sharks, right? The statement you made is just so loaded. People take it to mean what you, specifically, IMO, didn't mean it to say.
Of course women, or anyone, shouldn't have to be locked away or hidden behind certain types of clothing to be safe. I think any rational person believes that.
I raised girls. I told them countless times to keep their guard up. Know their surroundings. Don't get in cars with strange guys. Use the buddy system. Watch out for each other. I encouraged them not to dress seductively. As a Mom, I felt it necessary and prudent to do so. I would never, ever tell my adult friends that. Or accuse someone of being in the wrong if she does dress a certain way and gets attacked. I'm afraid it's just so easy to do, though.
  #4  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:01 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
In the recent past, my statement that "If a woman just stayed at home, locked in her bedroom wearing a burka, it would significantly lower her chances of being assaulted" was deemed "racist and misogynistic"
Could you please link to the exchange you're talking about? It's hard to get a clear idea of how your statement might have come across without seeing the context of the conversation.
  #5  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:11 PM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,493
"Lock yourself in your room" while statistically true, is largely disingenuous and so true it becomes irrelevant.
"Don't get drunk at a bar and go to a shady hotel with a total stranger" is solid advice.
"It shouldn't be like that" is also true, but unhelpful.

So, yeah, it doesn't have to be misogynistic, but it has to be frames in the best possible way.
"Don't go alone at night through the rough parts of town" doesn't mean your are to be blamed for being mugged, that falls squarely on the mugger, still, exercising caution is good.
  #6  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:12 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,766
Most of the advice for avoiding assaults of any kind, for any gender, falls under the category of "situational awareness". I think that the main situation in which people are at risk of sexual assault are environments where alcohol is being used. A room full of drunk people needs to be viewed as basically a room full of primitive apes. If you're going to enter that environment and especially if you are going to be participating in the drinking, you need to be aware of the limit of how much alcohol you can consume before losing your situational awareness.

I don't think women need to be advised to change their "behavior" in the sense of how they dress, how they talk, or whatever. They should be advised, though, to monitor their awareness and reflexes.
  #7  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:13 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,390
The point isn't that a woman could spend her days sitting in a windowless room, with a crossbow ready and aimed at the only, triple-locked door - and in doing that strenuously reduce any chance of assault on her person, sexual or otherwise. The point is that not only they shouldn't have to, but it IS misogynistic to suggest they could when you don't suggest that, say, the victim of a mugging couldashoulda stayed home or not carried a wallet or be walking the streets like some brazen money-having piñata. Nor does a person run over by a drunk driver get admonished that they knew there were cars out there and people drinking, and if they'd only stayed away from any street, road or carriage lane in the state then their misfortune wouldn't have happened now would it ?


Well, I'm a guy, and a bit of a drunk. I've been to bars alone. I've passed out in streets and subways, I've wandered aimlessly around in darkened streets, singing my liver out. I even woke up without wallet or phone a couple times. Cost of doing drunken business. Nobody ever suggested that I should just stay home, or only go out drinking on the buddy system, or even decline the ever-present invitations of all the strange, luscious ladies who crave my body night after night (irresistible sex appeal being my cross to bear). The only victims of crime who ever get tut-tutted and wagged fingers at for their "behaviour" are women who get molested. That's what misogynistic about that line of argument. It's implicitly a form of blaming the victim, and suggesting that women being out in public living their lives are somehow Doing It Wrong.
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #8  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:15 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Sure, but I'm not sure how to do it. But here is the thread where a poster said The claim "it is a simple fact that the woman can reduce her chances of being assaulted significantly by changing her behavior" is not a "simple fact."

And I disagreed with that. And used hyperbole to point out how ridiculous that statement was, but then was accused of being racist and misogynistic.

Sorry: This was a response to Kimstu, and I forgot to quote and was late.

Last edited by manson1972; 07-14-2019 at 09:16 PM.
  #9  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:17 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,573
I’m going to say no. It’s an obvious fact that people can mitigate risk. But when obvious fact collides with fervently believed ideology or ideology that is fervently promoted don’t expect facts to triumph.
  #10  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:19 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,957
You also said:

Quote:
Sure. No women who were locked in their bedroom wearing a burka have ever been assaulted. Women who don't do that have.

QED
Which is... Let's say doubtful. Considering that spousal rape is a thing, as is other assault that takes place in the home.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...4&postcount=26

This was an exchange that was getting kind of ridiculous, but nonetheless.
  #11  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:19 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
The point isn't that a woman could spend her days sitting in a windowless room, with a crossbow ready and aimed at the only, triple-locked door - and in doing that strenuously reduce any chance of assault on her person, sexual or otherwise. The point is that not only they shouldn't have to, but it IS misogynistic to suggest they could when you don't suggest that, say, the victim of a mugging couldashoulda stayed home or not carried a wallet or be walking the streets like some brazen money-having piñata. Nor does a person run over by a drunk driver get admonished that they knew there were cars out there and people drinking, and if they'd only stayed away from any street, road or carriage lane in the state then their misfortune wouldn't have happened now would it ?


Well, I'm a guy, and a bit of a drunk. I've been to bars alone. I've passed out in streets and subways, I've wandered aimlessly around in darkened streets, singing my liver out. I even woke up without wallet or phone a couple times. Cost of doing drunken business. Nobody ever suggested that I should just stay home, or only go out drinking on the buddy system, or even decline the ever-present invitations of all the strange, luscious ladies who crave my body night after night (irresistible sex appeal being my cross to bear). The only victims of crime who ever get tut-tutted and wagged fingers at for their "behaviour" are women who get molested. That's what misogynistic about that line of argument. It's implicitly a form of blaming the victim, and suggesting that women being out in public living their lives are somehow Doing It Wrong.
That’s not true. People who are victims of all sorts of crimes or accidents are admonished and potential victims are warned all the time. Look at something like a ladder.
  #12  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:20 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
The point isn't that a woman could spend her days sitting in a windowless room, with a crossbow ready and aimed at the only, triple-locked door - and in doing that strenuously reduce any chance of assault on her person, sexual or otherwise. The point is that not only they shouldn't have to, but it IS misogynistic to suggest they could when you don't suggest that, say, the victim of a mugging couldashoulda stayed home or not carried a wallet or be walking the streets like some brazen money-having piñata.
I agree. But I would tell someone who said "A person cannot change their behavior to lesson their chances of being mugged" the same thing.

I was simply responding to the poster who said "The claim "it is a simple fact that the woman can reduce her chances of being assaulted significantly by changing her behavior" is not a "simple fact."

Seems like a simple fact to me.

Notice that it is "can" and not "should"
  #13  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:22 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
You also said:



Which is... Let's say doubtful. Considering that spousal rape is a thing, as is other assault that takes place in the home.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...4&postcount=26

This was an exchange that was getting kind of ridiculous, but nonetheless.
That's fair. For the purposes of this question, can we assume that I meant "assaulted by people who don't normally have access to them in their home"?
  #14  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:22 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,109
Your exact example was, "If a woman just stayed at home, locked in her bedroom wearing a burka, it would significantly lower her chances of being assaulted."

Except that Nearly half of female rape victims were raped by a current or former partner.

Given that these partners are in the home, and the current partners likely have access to the bedroom lock, the claim that spending MORE time at home is going to reduce the risk of assault is questionable, not the "simple fact" you think it is.

More than that, though, did you really think your point was so unassailable and cogent and amazing that, even when you'd been cautioned away from pursuing it, barrelling ahead was your best move? When people are telling you to slow your roll, might be worth slowing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
That's fair. For the purposes of this question, can we assume that I meant "assaulted by people who don't normally have access to them in their home"?
Why the hell would we assume you meant that, instead of assuming you just hadn't thought the whole thing through?

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 07-14-2019 at 09:23 PM.
  #15  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:23 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I agree. But I would tell someone who said "A person cannot change their behavior to lesson their chances of being mugged" the same thing.

I was simply responding to the poster who said "The claim "it is a simple fact that the woman can reduce her chances of being assaulted significantly by changing her behavior" is not a "simple fact."

Seems like a simple fact to me.

Notice that it is "can" and not "should"

I guess, but then the question becomes : what's the purpose of your saying that at all ?
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #16  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:26 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beckdawrek View Post
I kinda see your point. I mean, if I never get in the ocean I'll never be eaten by sharks, right? The statement you made is just so loaded. People take it to mean what you, specifically, IMO, didn't mean it to say.
Of course women, or anyone, shouldn't have to be locked away or hidden behind certain types of clothing to be safe. I think any rational person believes that.
I raised girls. I told them countless times to keep their guard up. Know their surroundings. Don't get in cars with strange guys. Use the buddy system. Watch out for each other. I encouraged them not to dress seductively. As a Mom, I felt it necessary and prudent to do so. I would never, ever tell my adult friends that. Or accuse someone of being in the wrong if she does dress a certain way and gets attacked. I'm afraid it's just so easy to do, though.
Yes, this is something that I'm dreading as my daughter gets older. It pains me to know that she will be subjected to things my son is not. And blaming someone for their mistakes is a common human nature. But there is no mistake that my daughter can make that causes another person to assault her. But their ARE behaviors she can follow to lessen that chance. But I wouldn't blame her afterward if she didn't follow any of them.
  #17  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:28 PM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 947
There are at least two problems:

One is that you appear to be responding to a problem caused by the rapists' behavior by telling the victims to change their behavior. It's not their behavior that causes the problem, it's the behavior of the rapists. You may think you're not telling women to change their behavior: but what else is the point of the comment?

The other is that you appear to be presuming that rape is primarily an issue of easy opportunity, and that a rapist who doesn't get an extremely easy opportunity will just give up and not rape anybody. Probably a few of them will, but a lot of them won't. People do get raped inside their own homes, inside their own bedrooms. People wearing burkas get raped. Nuns in habits get raped. Rapists stalk people. They break into houses. They lie in wait for entirely sober people who are just trying to get home from work. They attack people who are at work, in their workplaces. All of these things happen. The rapist who can't find a drunk college student at a party may just go looking for one who's studying in the library, or in the dorm. [ETA: Or may marry the victim, or otherwise move in with the victim.]

If you've got to make statements about women changing their behavior, try recommending self-defense courses. That doesn't come across as badly as 'you could just spend your life hiding under the bed'; and a good one will teach situational awareness and warning signs, as well as things that can be done that don't require locking oneself up.

Last edited by thorny locust; 07-14-2019 at 09:31 PM.
  #18  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:28 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
That's fair. For the purposes of this question, can we assume that I meant "assaulted by people who don't normally have access to them in their home"?
A friend of mine was raped by a stranger who broke in. I was assaulted by an ex boyfriend who broke in. Another friend was raped by a family friend in her own room. None of us were wearing burkas, though. Perhaps that would have made all the difference.

Last edited by raventhief; 07-14-2019 at 09:31 PM.
  #19  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:29 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
I guess, but then the question becomes : what's the purpose of your saying that at all ?
Because another poster said that behavior can't be altered to lessen the chances. And I rebutted him. That's the only reason.
  #20  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:30 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,451
It's in the "technically true but practically useless" bucket. Generally speaking, when people ask the question "what can a person do in order to..." there's an implicit "that's not overly burdensome, time-consuming, ridiculous, or expensive" in the middle of it. If you're having a serious conversation, people will tend to exclude the ones that are overly burdensome, time-consuming etc from the list. If you don't do that, then yeah, people will act like you're just yanking their chain for the fun of it.

Of course, staying locked in your room wearing a burka will totally decrease your chance of rape, because by the end of the first week or so you will have starved to death. Being slightly less literal, I believe that instances of rape in countries where women wear burkas and stay locked in their rooms only most of the time, have no better rape rates than countries where people act like normal human beings (most of the rapes being perpetrated by family members like, say, husbands)
__________________
Science created the modern world. Politics is doing its best to destroy it.
  #21  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:33 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,526
I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about steps one can take to mitigate risks. I make sure my house is well lit, locks are secure, and my shrubbery doesn't obstruct the view of doors and windows from the street in order to make my house less attractive to burglars. But when my neighbor's house is broken into I won't tell him he could have avoided this situation it if only he did x, y, or z.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #22  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:33 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
If you've got to make statements about women changing their behavior, try recommending self-defense courses. That doesn't come across as badly as 'you could just spend your life hiding under the bed'; and a good one will teach situational awareness and warning signs, as well as things that can be done that don't require locking oneself up.
I don't "got" to make statements regarding women. I do feel the need to question people who make wide sweeping statements about things that are incorrect. Well, not need per se, but responding to posters on this message board.

But according to the poster to whom I was responding, your suggestion is not possible, because woman cannot change their behavior to lessen their chances of be assaulted.
  #23  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:34 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
For the purposes of this question, can we assume that I meant "assaulted by people who don't normally have access to them in their home"?
...can you concede that in the ATMB thread you didn't stipulate you meant "assaulted by people who don't normally have access to them in their home", and since you didn't, the statement " "If a woman just stayed at home, locked in her bedroom wearing a burka, it would significantly lower her chances of being assaulted" is simply not factual?
  #24  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:37 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...can you concede that in the ATMB thread you didn't stipulate you meant "assaulted by people who don't normally have access to them in their home", and since you didn't, the statement " "If a woman just stayed at home, locked in her bedroom wearing a burka, it would significantly lower her chances of being assaulted" is simply not factual?
Only if you want to put forth the opinion that no women get assaulted outside their home.
  #25  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:40 PM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post

So my statement was posted as a "could" and not a "should". I, in no way, shape, or form, suggest, imply, recommend, or believe that a woman should alter her behavior to avoid sexual assault.
You were being pedantic( yes, this is the pot calling the kettle black ). Needlessly pedantic, because everyone knows that staying locked in a vault your entire life will lessen the possibility of rape. It also should reduce your odds of getting skin cancer. Also living as a property-less aesthete in a monastery will lessen your odds of going bankrupt. Chopping off your hands will likely eliminate having to sit through those dire piano lessons your parents insist on. Etc.

Folks jumping on you for being a misogynist were giving you credit for being something other than blankly factual.

Frankly, nobody likes needless pedantry except the pedant( this is the pot speaking again ).

ETA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
I guess, but then the question becomes : what's the purpose of your saying that at all ?
Also, that.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 07-14-2019 at 09:42 PM.
  #26  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:41 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,844
IMHO, it depends on the timing.

If you tell someone beforehand, "If you leave your car keys in your car ignition, you run the risk of the car being stolen," that's pointing out that behavior increases risk.

If you tell someone after their car is stolen, "Why did you leave your keys in the car?", that seems to be shifting moral blame away from the car thief.
  #27  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:41 PM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,451
Women who get assaulted by partners might increase their chances of being raped by staying home in a burka (rather than being out in public with plenty of witnesses)
__________________
Science created the modern world. Politics is doing its best to destroy it.
  #28  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:50 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Can a factual statement be considered "racist and misogynistic"? That seems strange to me.
Are you serious? "Your breasts are beautiful" is a factual statement. Does it really seem strange to you that in some contexts it would be appropriate, but in others it would be egregiously misogynistic?

You made a factual statement. Is it really so hard to grasp that the context in which you made it is critical?

Now, it's a matter for debate to what degree the particular statement you made in that particular context was misogynistic. But surely you can accept that "but it was factual" is not a valid defense in itself.

Last edited by Riemann; 07-14-2019 at 09:54 PM.
  #29  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:54 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 599
it is interesting- i can minimize my chances of being mugged walking down the street in a bad area by doing certain things- walking fast, talking to myself, acting annoyed, holding a hand in my pocket like I have a gun, etc. and someone telling me that would not be insulting me, and the woman scenario is similar. I think in society its just one of those things you dont say, even if there is some truth to it. Like when Bush Sr.'s wife said, in defense of son, many poor displaced by katrina actually got a better life and/or housing situation out of it- in many cases true, but seen as tacky nonetheless.

Last edited by Helmut Doork; 07-14-2019 at 09:55 PM.
  #30  
Old 07-14-2019, 09:55 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Only if you want to put forth the opinion that no women get assaulted outside their home.
That's...that's not how time works. That's not how any of this works.

A woman who normally spends 12 hours in a 24-hour day outside the home, and then 12 hours in the home, might decide to eliminate all her time outside the home.

That doesn't make the day 12 hours long. It means she spends more time in the home.

And if the risk of assault is roughly similar whether you're at home (where partner/relative/roommate assault can occur) or outside the home, staying at home doesn't eliminate any risk at all.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 07-14-2019 at 09:56 PM.
  #31  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:00 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Doork View Post
it is interesting- i can minimize my chances of being mugged walking down the street in a bad area by doing certain things- walking fast, talking to myself, acting annoyed, holding a hand in my pocket like I have a gun, etc. and someone telling me that would not be insulting me, and the woman scenario is similar. I think in society its just one of those things you dont say, even if there is some truth to it. Like when Bush Sr.'s wife said, in defense of son, many poor displaced by katrina actually got a better life and/or housing situation out of it- in many cases true, but seen as tacky nonetheless.
Or you could never leave your home at all! That would also minimize your chances of getting mugged.

Which, to be clear, is the suggestion here. Not reducing chances of sexual assault by holding your keys as a weapon, carrying pepper spray, talking to yourself or acting annoyed.

Last edited by raventhief; 07-14-2019 at 10:02 PM.
  #32  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:00 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamerlane View Post
Needlessly pedantic, because everyone knows that staying locked in a vault your entire life will lessen the possibility of rape.
Apparently not everyone, since at least one poster on this board thinks that woman cannot change their behavior to lessen their chances of being assaulted.
  #33  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:01 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Are you serious? "Your breasts are beautiful" is a factual statement.
You can't possibly be serious with this.
  #34  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:04 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Doork View Post
it is interesting- i can minimize my chances of being mugged walking down the street in a bad area by doing certain things- walking fast, talking to myself, acting annoyed, holding a hand in my pocket like I have a gun, etc. and someone telling me that would not be insulting me, and the woman scenario is similar. I think in society its just one of those things you dont say, even if there is some truth to it. Like when Bush Sr.'s wife said, in defense of son, many poor displaced by katrina actually got a better life and/or housing situation out of it- in many cases true, but seen as tacky nonetheless.
What exactly is "interesting"? Obviously the much greater sensitivity to any appearance of victim blaming in sex crimes against women is because we have a long history of actual victim blaming in sex crimes against women.
  #35  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:04 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Nobody ever suggested that I should just stay home, or only go out drinking on the buddy system, or even decline the ever-present invitations of all the strange, luscious ladies who crave my body night after night (irresistible sex appeal being my cross to bear). The only victims of crime who ever get tut-tutted and wagged fingers at for their "behaviour" are women who get molested. That's what misogynistic about that line of argument. It's implicitly a form of blaming the victim, and suggesting that women being out in public living their lives are somehow Doing It Wrong.
How old are you? (Approximate decade is specific enough.) Men definitely hear that now, and the idea that only female rape victims are criticized for their behavior is not true.

Example: Several years ago, a young man was murdered at a now-closed strip club in my town. I know that I am not the only person who thought, "That man should not have been partying in a strip club at 3:30am, or any other time; he should have been at home with his wife and baby" and while that's true, he didn't deserve to die for it either.
  #36  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:08 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
That's...that's not how time works. That's not how any of this works.

A woman who normally spends 12 hours in a 24-hour day outside the home, and then 12 hours in the home, might decide to eliminate all her time outside the home.

That doesn't make the day 12 hours long. It means she spends more time in the home.

And if the risk of assault is roughly similar whether you're at home (where partner/relative/roommate assault can occur) or outside the home, staying at home doesn't eliminate any risk at all.
That's a legitimate point. If the risk of assault is similar to whether you're at home or outside the home. Anything to substantiate that?
  #37  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:09 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
You can't possibly be serious with this.
Well, with your selective quote I see that you're taking care to avoid the substance of the point I made.

Were you serious in the suggestion in your OP that if a statement is factual it cannot be racist or misogynistic?
  #38  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:11 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Well, with your selective quote I see that you're taking care to avoid the substance of the point I made.

Were you serious in the suggestion in your OP that if a statement is factual it cannot be racist or misogynistic?
Of course I'm serious. But "Your breasts are beautiful" is not a factual statement.
  #39  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:11 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
That's a legitimate point. If the risk of assault is similar to whether you're at home or outside the home. Anything to substantiate that?
No. But the point is, your claim was not a "simple fact." It's complicated, and not necessarily factual.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 07-14-2019 at 10:11 PM.
  #40  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:18 PM
Helmut Doork is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
What exactly is "interesting"? Obviously the much greater sensitivity to any appearance of victim blaming in sex crimes against women is because we have a long history of actual victim blaming in sex crimes against women.
interesting in that such suggestions are deemed wrong in society, I think because they seem to be assumed to be based on the premise of 'women, you make guys do this, here is how to not make make innocent men assualt you', when the premise is better thought as 'women, there are horrible assholes out there, always will be, even though nothing you could possibly do warrants assault, here is how to help avoid being the victim of an asshole"?
  #41  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:18 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,957
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Of course I'm serious. But "Your breasts are beautiful" is not a factual statement.
How about "your breasts are really big!" To a woman who in fact has significantly larger than average breasts?
  #42  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:19 PM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Of course I'm serious. But "Your breasts are beautiful" is not a factual statement.
Sure it is. Are you suggesting that whether it's misogynistic depends upon whether it's true, rather than whether it's an appropriate comment in context? If so, I think that's at the heart of the problem you're having with all this.

Last edited by Riemann; 07-14-2019 at 10:20 PM.
  #43  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:21 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972
I was simply responding to the poster who said "The claim "it is a simple fact that the woman can reduce her chances of being assaulted significantly by changing her behavior" is not a "simple fact."

Seems like a simple fact to me.
I think you're being a bit deliberately obtuse here. Remember, according to your link (for which thank you, btw), this discussion took place in the context of SamuelA's analogy to German Jews' reducing their chances of being genocided by ceasing to be Jewish:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA
You could advise a young woman who goes to frat parties and gets drunk to 'stop being so rape-able'. This doesn't make the frat boys not criminals but it is a simple fact that the woman can reduce her chances of being assaulted significantly by changing her behavior. If it was possible for Jewish Germans to assimilate and make themselves not targets it's a valid and compelling thing to do. Regardless of the criminal guilt of their government.
With regard to which, GreysonCarlisle remarked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreysonCarlisle
It's a perfectly valid debate, so long as it stays away from victim blaming, which the poster took pains to avoid in both aspects (the rape part and the Jewish part).

So no, I don't see it as beyond the pale, trolling, or even being a jerk.
To which Banquet Bear replied:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear
The claim "it is a simple fact that the woman can reduce her chances of being assaulted significantly by changing her behavior" is not a "simple fact." You may not see it as "beyond the pale, trolling, or even being a jerk", but you will find that many on these boards will disagree with your opinion, including me.
So, to recap the rape discussion, leaving the attempted analogy with genocide out of it:

- SamuelA is treating the legally and socially acceptable activity of getting drunk at a frat party as an irresponsible choice to "be rape-able" when it's a young woman who does it. Although he acknowledges that it's criminal for "frat boys" to rape the woman in those circumstances, the only person whose behavior he's actually pushing to change is that of the young woman who's doing nothing illegal nor harming anyone.

- GreysonCarlisle doesn't think that's "victim blaming", because SamuelA acknowledged that the criminal behavior is on the part of the rapist(s).

- Banquet Bear disagrees, pointing out that the emphasis on heavy disapproval of the woman's (legal and harmless) behavior puts the remarks into "jerkish" or "trolling" territory (on which I tend to agree with him, btw).

- You in this thread, manson1972 are trying to decontextualize that discussion to make it look as though the issue is simply whether it's factually true that a woman can significantly reduce her chances of being assaulted by changing her behavior.


As other posters have pointed out, even that artificially isolated statement isn't such an open-and-shut issue as you're trying to argue. In any case, I think it's pretty clear that the point Banquet Bear was making was a critique of SamuelA's post as heavily implying a victim-scolding attitude, rather than being a mere neutral unbiased observation.
  #44  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:24 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
Sure it is. Are you suggesting that whether it's misogynistic depends upon whether it's true, rather than whether it's an appropriate comment in context? If so, I think that's at the heart of the problem you're having with all this.
No, (and at the risk of objectifying breasts), whether or not breasts are beautiful is not factual.
  #45  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:27 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
As other posters have pointed out, even that artificially isolated statement isn't such an open-and-shut issue as you're trying to argue. In any case, I think it's pretty clear that the point Banquet Bear was making was a critique of SamuelA's post as heavily implying a victim-scolding attitude, rather than being a mere neutral unbiased observation.
I'm not even going to touch whatever SamuelA was talking about. My feelings on him can be discerned by reading BBQ Pit posts.

I read Banquet Bear's quote as a direct thought on what women can or cannot do. My response to him was hyperbole to show the ridiculousness of his statement.
  #46  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:29 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Doork View Post
when the premise is better thought as 'women, there are horrible assholes out there, always will be [...]"
Still problematic. The assumption that men's criminal violence against women---and not just on the part of very rare dangerous-sociopath men, but typical men a woman might encounter anywhere---is just an inevitable and accepted fact of life, and women need to constantly adjust and police their own behavior to try to avoid this constant threat of criminal violence from ordinary men, is in itself pretty sexist and misogynistic.

How about we try adopting a premise more like 'women, there are horrible assholes out there, and our society has to a large extent normalized and tolerated horrible-asshole criminal violence against women by treating rape as a joke or a natural phenomenon or an inevitable impersonal risk like bad weather. So we need to change our attitudes and teach men not to assume that being a horrible asshole by assaulting women is basically okay'?
  #47  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:30 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
No. But the point is, your claim was not a "simple fact." It's complicated, and not necessarily factual.
Here is a link about sexual assault. And it shows that 45% of sexual assaults occur outside the home. So yeah, staying home "could" reduce the number of sexual assaults that occur.

Forgot the link: link

Last edited by manson1972; 07-14-2019 at 10:32 PM.
  #48  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:36 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Here is a link about sexual assault. And it shows that 45% of sexual assaults occur outside the home. So yeah, staying home "could" reduce the number of sexual assaults that occur.

Forgot the link: link
What? WHAT???

If 45% of fatal head injuries occur outside the home, do I lower my risk of head injury by staying at home?

Dude.

Your "simple fact" is anything but.
  #49  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:37 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I'm not even going to touch whatever SamuelA was talking about. [...]

I read Banquet Bear's quote as a direct thought on what women can or cannot do. My response to him was hyperbole to show the ridiculousness of his statement.
Well, given that Banquet Bear was explicitly talking about what SamuelA said, it seems kind of wilfully ignorant to disregard that context in favor of insisting "hey, when I consider this response completely out of context I can interpret it in a way that seems ridiculous".

I mean, no shit, Einstein, sure you can. Likewise, when I hear a Frenchman saying "Merci" and consider his remark completely out of its linguistic context, I can interpret it to mean that the Frenchman is begging for mercy. But it would be more intelligent on my part to try to consider his remark in context, wouldn't it?
  #50  
Old 07-14-2019, 10:42 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
What? WHAT???

If 45% of fatal head injuries occur outside the home, do I lower my risk of head injury by staying at home?

Dude.

Your "simple fact" is anything but.
what? WHAT? Of course you lower your risk of head injury if 45% of them occurred outside side the home and you stayed home.

Do you think I would lower my chances of dying in a car accident if I never stepped foot in a car?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017