So, your argumentative and accusatory tone has all been to defend a hypothetical? Ok. 
Would this be the sentiment that women benefit by voluntarily adopting more “ladylike” behaviors?
And are you inferring from that that if they don’t they’ll get “shamed” in the ways you describe?
First, I’m utterly unaware of any widespread teachings or beliefs that women are the root of all evil. And to whatever degree they may have existed at one time, no such teachings or influence has existed recently enough, or been widespread enough, to have had any effect on women today.
Secondly, do you really and truly think men and boys exist out there who lack the knowledge that it’s not only wrong and unacceptable, but illegal, to commit sexual assault and rape, and that if we could only get through to them or inculcate within them from toddlerhood the knowledge that such behavior is wrong, they would no longer commit these crimes?
People commit crimes for two reasons: One, they lack the moral values that keep other people honest and law-abiding; and two, they want what they want badly enough to feel the payoff is worth the risk.
Most rapes don’t occur because men don’t respect women. They occur because certain men have perverse desires centered on women, some of which can be triggered by the woman’s appearance and behavior, either proper or improper, and by others which have nothing at all to do with the particular woman involved, who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Thus I don’t believe that the more serious sexual crimes such as assault with the intent to rape and rape itself can be lessened to any significant degree through social pressure brought to bear by myself or anyone else.
By my reading I’ve done little to no talking about what women and girls are doing wrong, unless you happen to mean my comments regarding the degree of responsibility people (men and women) bear should they knowingly undertake behaviors that they know, or should know, place them at risk of a bad or harmful outcome.
And I stand by those comments.
I would be interested to know, however, if there are other comments I’ve made that you feel are wrongfully talking about what girls and women are doing wrong.
This is not correct. Major religions DO teach that women are the root of all evil. Think about this for just one minute. I’ll give you a clue: Old Testament. Need more? Garden of Eden. Another? Eve. Any religion that uses the Old Testament teaches that women are the root of evil, that women are given to men, that women are weak.
Really? Have you read Genesis lately?
Maybe. Maybe they need role-models who don’t sit on a sofa and guffaw and screech with a beer in their hand at females on the TV.
Yeah, I’ll go with that…
BZZZZT…WRONG. Rapes occur because men don’t respect women. No triggers needed.
Le sigh. Women aren’t doing anything wrong. You still haven’t got it have you?? :dubious:
I’ve been consistent in the approach that I’d take and the thinking behind that right from the first post.
Where I agree with people I say so. Where I think clarification is needed due to ambiguity or where I think nuance is needed then of course I’ll be argumentative (and how exactly could this board ever explore issues without resorting to argument?)
Defending a hypothetical? No, I’m not doing that.
How we treat victims, the words we use and the ways we might learn from their experiences is important and only too real. Having any reference to such learning shut down by blanket accusations of “victim blaming” is counter-productive.
It is. I would think something along the line of “chivalrous practices” (but without the quotes) would be a more likely way to put it sans prejudice. And given that these women’s safety is the primary motive for my having instituted these practices in the first place, I would think “safety practices” (again, sans quotes) would be even more appropriate way to phrase it.
I suppose that technically I’m part of “someone else.” However I asked the question in the context of what Crafter_Man or anyone else were to do in regard to your assertion that society come up with a solution that would result in Crafter_Man’s daughter being able to safely walk country roads alone. In my mind, being some distance away and not involved in any civic or social activities committed to working on such a solution, I naturally failed to think of myself when I made the comment. Plus I can see your point about the tie-in with the women in our parking lot, so I’ll retract my objection.
Yes. And…?
We are suggesting in order that the boy’s motivation for rudeness and crudeness will hopefully evaporate.
I’ve answered this already. In fact you reply to that answer in your next comment.
It’s hard to say. It’s just as likely, in my opinion, that such a tactic will serve to anger and alienate the boys even more, with the result that they will be even more inclined to be mean to or difficult with the girls in whatever ways they can get away with.
First of all, I think we need to keep in mind that all this “rude and crude” behavior on the point of the boys is mere speculation. We don’t know for a fact that any such behavior exists, or, if it does, that it exists to a particularly troubling degree.
It’s also within the realm of possibility that the school’s administrators began to perceive crass and vulgar behavior beginning to take hold within the community of female students, a situation not incredible, given the role models young girls have today in the fields of entertainment and music. And it’s also possible that along with this more crass and vulgar behavior on the part of the girls came a concomitant lessening of respect from the boys, who may have begun treating them like the scuzzbugs they’d begun to imitate.
Naturally, being human beings, the girls may well have been wanting to have their cake and eat it too by virtue of wanting to act street while still being treated as if they were still feminine and girly, and the school administrators, picking up on this dissatisfaction, posted the phrase in question above the girl’s lockers in an effort to wise them up that if they wanted more gentlemanly treatment from the guys, behaving in a more ladylike way would be a good way to go about it.
There are fairly obvious reasons as to why you don’t see or hear such messages. For one, groups of guys typically aren’t involved, as were the group of girls in the middle school in Houston.
And for another, there’s no need to tell guys to modify their behavior in an attempt to positively influence the behavior of their would-be attackers. It’s automatic. It’s a case either of apologize or try to explain your way out of it, flee or otherwise remove yourself from the situation if you can and you desire to do so, or put up a fight and see what happens.
And I’m pretty sure it never crosses any guy’s mind to try to make sure the attacker recognizes or accepts his responsibility for having initiated the conflict. I would imagine you think it’s hard enough trying to get large groups of people to acknowledge and change their wrongful behavior, so now try to imagine how easy it would be to change the minds and behavior of aggressive individuals who become involved in random, one-off physical battles with strangers from time to time.
I’ll grant that you’re correct in this context. I had a much different idea in mind while attempting to envision centuries of patriarchal scolds insisting that women are the root of all evil, controlling and shaming them for daring to wear what’s comfortable or stylish, or for choosing to date certain men, or for choosing to have sex, etc.
But c’mon. How many people take this Adam and Eve stuff seriously? Do you have any evidence that even a small percentage of the men who commit sexual assault or rape have become convinced this behavior is okay because the Bible says women are evil?
If you do, I’ll read it, and if credible I’ll take it seriously.
But I can tell you that every asshole type I’ve known in my life, going all the way back to school days, hasn’t had a religious bone in his body.
I’m out of time for tonight and plan to revisit this post when come back.
I have just read this whole thread and want to extend a huge “bravo” for all of your posts here, Kimstu. It’s a shame they have not seemed to penetrate the apparently entrenched views of your main interlocutor, but I hope they have helped open the eyes of some other readers.
For starters, sometimes people have done that because they didn’t know people could spike drinks, or because they trusted the people they’d left watching the drink. Yeah, sometimes it turns out the people you thought were your friends happen to be assholes.
Starving Artist, you yourself clearly have bought into the idea that women are weak, not just physically, but in a “can’t take care of themselves at all” kind of way. The not-so-funny other side is that the same mindset usually expects us to take care of everybody else in the household, because men can’t fry their own eggs without their sausages falling off. It’s a way of thinking which makes everybody less than we can be.
And you think it’s not also automatic for women to modify their behavior? And you think men always make the right choices about how to modify their behavior and women don’t?
I read what he wrote several times, thinking he couldn’t possibly be implying that girls are inherently in need of patronizing instruction while boys are not.
But that is what he is saying. Despite the fact that male-on-male violence is a much bigger problem in our society than male-on-female—and we’re talking about shit like murder and maimings—somehow he concludes boys automatically know how to defend themselves and don’t need wall quotes to remind them of the importance of gentlemanly behavior.
“…crass and vulgar behavior beginning to take hold within the community of female students…”
“…with this more crass and vulgar behavior on the part of the girls came a concomitant lessening of respect from the boys…”
“…the girls may well have been wanting to have their cake and eat it too…”
Just WOW.
He keeps denying he’s saying that girls/women should adapt themselves to be more acceptable to boys/men or it’s their fault boys/men will treat them poorly, then he writes this shit.
And of course boys/men are never influenced into bad behavior or poor role models. It’s just the girls at this school, necessitating a lecture emblazoned on the wall for them to better their behavior lest boys let them have it.
This is incorrect. More later.
I’m surprised at the clarity you perceive as I have no such view of women at all. Certainly women generally are smaller and less strong physically than men, but that doesn’t mean I view women as weak or helpless.
I spoke above of my admiration for women, and the strength and patience and resiliency they display almost constantly is one of the key points in my admiration for them. I’ve known many women who deal with tremendous adversity in their private lives, adversity involving their finances, their children, divorce, etc., and they do all with a stoicism and determination combined with optimism for the future that I’m quite sure I would be able to match were I in their situation.
I’m truly at a loss to understand how you would take efforts on my part to keep them safe, when everyone knows the risks women are under from sexual predators or robbers seeking to take advantage of their smaller size and strength, or to help out on those occasions I see them struggling with heavy objects, as indications that I’m of the belief that women are weaklings incapable of taking care of themselves.
If women were capable of taking care of themselves in ways that I’m concerned about, women such as Mollie Tibbetts, Vanessa Marcotte, Karina Vetrano and Ally Brueger would all still be alive today.
And the fact they aren’t is not the result of these women who were out jogging being weak and unable to take care of themselves, it’s the result of their having been accosted by larger, stronger and in some cases armed individuals who were intent on doing them harm.
I’d bet dollars to donuts that despite the fact that these women were each involved in athletic activity and presumably strong and capable of caring for themselves perfectly well at the time they were attacked, each would still be alive today had a man been jogging beside them.
First of all, I appreciate your giving me the benefit of the doubt and re-reading my comments in an effort to see if you had misunderstood.
The problem is that you still misunderstood, but don’t realize how.
The question you asked was an apple and oranges one in which no equivalence could be drawn between attempting to pre-emptively influence the behavior of an antagonist in the sort of spontaneous male-to-male conflict I described, involving an attacker one has likely never seen before and probably won’t see again, vs. an ongoing effort to influence the behavior of groups of male and female children who interact with each other every day.
And as an aside, I would quarrel with your characterization of the quote on the wall as being patronizing – at least until such time as we may discover why it was placed and what problems or behavior the school hoped to address by it. It may have been patronizing or it may not. At this time we simply don’t know.
Again we have the same false equivalence. And the same answer applies.
Apparently you’ve missed the many times I’ve been critical of the “bitches” and “ho’s” component of rap and hip-hop music. I’ve complained many times about the sort of attitude toward girls and women it’s likely to foster in young males.
Now we’re at a place where many female pop stars have adopted lowlife “bitch” and “ho” personas, so it doesn’t necessarily strain credulity that young girls may be starting to emulate the behavior of these women, with the result being that which I described.
And then again, maybe not. After all, what I said in this regard was mere speculation. I thought I made that clear.
According to the many other replies of people, who happen to be people, it does not seem that you have.
Please try again on the next Tuesday, of a leap year, that ends in applesauce.
Namaste?
Mr. Middle Initial “D”. When a “D.” appears, the general consensus is that they are going to stir things up on a global scale, for better or for worse.
The consensus around these here parts seem to think the “for worse” attitude pilgrim cowboy Bebop.
Zoinks! Indeed.
So now I ask what in the hell makes you think boys aren’t victims of group-level mistreatment? That’s the main way bullying plays out in school, and that was one of the offenses you mentioned. Aggressive boys are norotorious for running in packs and preying on anyone lacking in social status. Boys are not immune from such predation in the slightest, but oddly, your fixation is on girls and the responsibility that girls have on not making themselves ”easy targets”.
This kid ended up dying because his bullies did a rather “ungentlemanly” thing to him. in situations like this, what male-gendered bromide can we plaster on the wall that would place responsibility for respectful conduct on the right party? Should we be urging boys to act like gentlemen if they want to be treated with respect and kindness by other boys? Why is it not enough to simply urge everyone to be good to each other?