Hahaha! Here’s something else hilarious! The above should start with…*“Knowing the postership of the board as I do…” *
Hmm, and this is an interesting sidelight:
The question that springs to mind is, how do you imagine that you would be “capable” of a successful defense of this woman against an assailant who had a gun? Unless you are carrying a firearm in the workplace yourself and are reliably competent at using it, I don’t see how being accompanied by a 70-year-old male co-worker would realistically contribute more to this woman’s safety than being a combat-trained military vet in her own right.
Ah, yes, the patented Kimstu Contradiction Trap, in which two comments taken out of context are made to appear to contradict each other. However, I’m confidant that anyone capable of reading for comprehension should be able to suss out my position on the relative likelihood of sex abuse toward these two groups without too much trouble.
Certainly we can agree to all of that, although the reason for the latter utterly escapes me. After all, the suggestion that more proper behavior on the part of girls might result in more gentlemanly behavior from boys is far removed indeed from the claim that more proper behavior might result in improved behavior from sex abusers.
As for myself, I’m more inclined to think that more ladylike behavior from young girls might result in such things from the guys as holding doors, using less crass language, showing a bit more respect, you know, things like that…all of which would qualify as improved gentlemanly behavior.
How you people get from that to “OMG!!! IT’S OPEN-SEASON ON RAPE ONCE GIRLS START ACTING LIKE LADIES!!!” is anyone’s guess.
And from what I gather from online news comments and Facebook posts, most of the rest of the country has no idea either. It’s just more incomprehensible left-wing nutjobbery not worth the time to attempt to figure out.
How you get to “OMG!!! IT’S OPEN-SEASON ON RAPE ONCE GIRLS START ACTING LIKE LADIES!!!” from anything I’ve read in this thread is the real mystery.
CMC fnord!
FFS…SA, do you actually understand what the ‘risk factor’ is for young, middle aged and older women being assaulted/raped is?
It’s being a woman. That’s it. Simple as fuck.
And the overwhelming majority of those assaulting women are men.
In past generations women were raped and assaulted as well, even in your halcyon mis-remembered 1950’s, but were less likely to report such assaults because people like YOU would have labelled them Not-Ladies.
Nowadays, because the social climate has changed, we accept the testimonies of women on a prima-facie basis, but we still have the likes of you victim-blaming the Not-Ladies for the assaults upon their person.
Oh the times, they are a changin’…well, not really. :dubious:
Hmm, one last bit of elucidation and then I must call it a night.
First, I must challenge you once again on your predilection for making verbal presuppositions. What evidence do you have that I’ve ever indicated I would be capable of a successful defense against any assailant who has a gun?
I’m confident that you have none whatsoever and are merely trying to frame the question in such a manner as to be able to portray me in a foolish light.
The idea, dear Kimstu, is to play the odds. To make whatever skullduggery that may be afoot more difficult to pull off. It’s harder to rob a woman or force her into your car when there’s a 220 lb. man opposing you. It’s harder to successfully pull off whatever crime the criminal may have in mind when there are two people who can raise a ruckus, honk horns, yell for help, run for the door to summon more people, etc., than just one.
In other words, an extra body complicates things a great deal for the average street criminal or sex offender looking to make an easy strike.
And apart from the potential for harm to myself, what disadvantage is there to my being there? The woman in question certainly isn’t going to fare any better were I not there. So do you have a beef of any substance, or was this just an ill-considered attempt to make me look foolish?
I have this ex. The absolute worst you could say about her is that she was a shy, awkward wallflower. She certainly never “acted like a slut”. She never did anything to put herself at risk. She never even wore makeup or clothing more revealing than jeans and a sweatshirt.
She was raped twice before she graduated high school.
Fuck you, Starving Artist. If you think you get mistreated on this forum, I guarantee you, it is a miniscule fraction of what you deserve.
She should have worn make-up and a dress…that is what maketh a lady apparently. :rolleyes:
Sorry BPC. Not directed at you or your ex, obviously.
Do you have any evidence, here in this thread where loads of abuse are being heaped upon me for seeking to keep women safe as they leave our workplace in the dark, of my blaming any women for having been raped, or blew off any who had because they weren’t “Ladies”?
You people have lost it. You have completely lost it. You have gotten yourselves so wrapped up in and hyped up about these issues that you can’t think straight. I happen to have lots of women in my family that I love. And there are a lot of women where I work and where I shop that I’m close to and have become good friends with. Do you think I want to see them in constant danger of attack from sexual abusers? Or any women for that matter? I love women. I like a lot of my male friends a great deal and we have a lot of fun together, but I absolutely love women. I think that in many ways women encapsulate the best in human nature, and I admire greatly many of the qualities they possess.
But again, you people have utterly lost it. You make no damn sense whatsoever. You make these fantastic leaps of logic that no one lacking 50 years of Kool-Aid consumption can begin to comprehend, and you accuse countless numbers of totally innocent people of all sorts of evil based upon nothing but your own fevered imagination.
You had better wise up and knock it off with these idiotic accusations (like the one you just hurled at me, for example).
You have no idea how the idiotic nonsense involving that school quote and its alleged permission to abuse girls plays to the rest of the country. If you want another four years of Donald Trump come 2020 just keep it up.
And finger-waving, when called for.
BPC, that is truly saddening. I sincerely hope she was never made to feel she in anyway invited those assaults.
Ah, so now I’m responsible for your ex-girlfriend having been raped.
Typical.
:rolleyes:
So you know the other old dudes who believe women need to be policed for their own safety, from males like you for their own safety, from old males like you, need to be policed, that the old males got your back?
So because of that bigotry, you are free and clear, to harass and demean, and make feel uncomfortable, according to your own words, women who unfortunately share the same work space and presence as you.
You feel that, your desire, overpowers, rightly so, their desire, to not be harassed by unwanted male attention and unwanted forceful attention by males, admitted by you, that they are forced to experience, from you?
That is an incredibly dehumanizing thing that you are doing to these other humans.
Shitballs!
I feel sad. 
And sorry for my human sisters.
I sincerely apologize for the stupideness of us males,
Fucker can’t even read at a 4th grade level.
That’s not very lady-like BPC. 
I don’t set “traps”. And I didn’t take either of your comments out of context, unless by “context” you mean “logically incoherent free-associative meandering to the point that you’ve forgotten what your earlier remark was”.
Rather, I genuinely don’t understand what you meant to convey by first agreeing with Bee Gee that you “would imagine this is so” that being “the perfect lady” “will make you more of a target to certain assailants”, and then opining that you “would expect that trash-talking young girls […] would make much more likely targets for sexual abuse than would be the more ladylike girls”. Do you in fact mean that both those statements are true under different circumstances, and if so, what makes the difference?
Feel free to explain whatever “context” you had in mind in order to make those statements non-contradictory.
So, if I understand you correctly, you’re claiming that it’s ridiculous and far-fetched to suggest that “more proper behavior on the part of girls” could reduce sexual harassment and abuse directed at girls, and that nobody’s actually making any such suggestion.
But at the same time—in fact, right in the very next sentence, with no possibility of any “taking out of context”—you’re claiming it’s perfectly reasonable and sensible to suggest that “more proper behavior on the part of girls” could reduce “crassness” and “disrespect” directed at girls.
So exactly where are you drawing the line between “crassness and disrespect” on the one hand, and “sexual harassment” on the other? Because IME a fair amount of the “crassness and disrespect” that many toxic boys subject girls to does include harassing them sexually.
I didn’t claim that you “indicated” any such thing. I was just wondering why you seemed rather disparaging of your combat-trained co-worker’s claims of being able to defend herself physically (with remarks like “I have no idea how she would accomplish this were he to have a gun” and “believes herself capable of her own self-defense”), while apparently believing that the presence of one elderly male co-worker would significantly improve her chances.
If you were armed yourself in this situation (and, presumably, competent with a firearm), then I could see why you might consider that she’d be significantly safer in your company than alone. Otherwise, though, I’m kind of inclined to agree with the combat-trained vet that your presence wouldn’t make any particular difference to her safety. (And might even be a liability: suppose the hypothetical armed assailant grabs you unawares and tells her he’ll blow Grampa’s head off unless she follows orders?)
Well, ISTM that if it’s primarily about the safety of providing “an extra body”, then your efforts would be more usefully directed toward organizing a full-participation buddy system to ensure that nobody at your workplace ever goes outside alone after dark, rather than being a volunteer one-man “chivalry squad” who, by your own admission, sometimes fails to show up for duty and leaves your female co-workers to walk to their cars by themselves.
If, on the other hand, it’s primarily about the safety of having a powerful robust protector on hand, then your efforts would be more usefully directed toward recruiting younger fitter men (not to mention the younger combat-trained women) at your workplace to serve as safety escorts, rather than requiring all the young female employees to depend on one 70-year-old geezer who isn’t even always on duty.
If there’s no actual significant risk of harm to yourself or your co-workers from these hypothesized potential attackers, then I agree there’s no particular disadvantage at all to your going through your “chivalry display” schtick for a nice stroll and a chat with them. (Other than the underlying fundamental problems of trying to address threats to women’s safety by promoting restrictive supervision of the women’s own behavior, which we’ve already discussed.)
If, on the other hand, there is a significant risk of harm to your co-workers from potential attackers, then I think you’re being irresponsible in encouraging them to believe that having one unarmed and untrained old man sometimes walk them to their car is a genuinely useful safety precaution. You should be trying instead to arrange improved reliable security measures at your workplace that will actually be effective in making them safer.
One thing I wonder is, at what point does practical advice become “victim blaming”? and does the leaping to that conclusion make people less likely to offer or follow practical advice?
I have a daughter and a son. I absolutely raise the issue with them both regarding relationships, unwanted attention, mutual respect and ways in which they might reduce their chances of being involved in problematic criminal, violent or sexual situations. They both hear the same advice, they both are under the same expectations.
Does anyone think I’m wrong for doing so? Remember I am telling them of precautions they can take. Am I victim blaming one/both/neither?
Is there anyone in the thread that think girls should not be given any advice on how avoid problematic situations? How does such advice differ from “victim blaming” if your view is that the onus is on the other party not to offend?
Look, chum, you already fessed to screwing up the actual quoted message being pitted, claiming you misremembered it.
You don’t think just maybe you’re so set in your own preconception of what you want it to mean that it’s blinded you, not only to alternative interpretations, but even to the most literal reading?
And hey, if you feel there’s still a place for chivalry in this world, I won’t fault you for it. Just so long as you aren’t foisting it onto the unwilling.
But the message put on that scool wall, directed to those girls, had jack all to do with encouraging chivalry among boys.
If you want to give it the most charitable interpretation, you might posit that it was intended to encourage mutual respect among students, while unfortunately reflecting outdated notions of how women ought to behave in society.
But even then, you’re left with the message, plain and simple, “Girls, if you want the boys to behave themselves, here’s what YOU should be doing.”
Calling that Slut-shaming may be hyperbole, but that very message has a detestable history, an unfortunate persistence, and ugly consequences that, yes, do include slut-shaming and worse.
If you can’t see that, I think you’re allowing you’re perception to be clouded by your politics.
Or maybe you’re just an arsehole with poor comprehension and a shitty attitude.
I’d say, right at the point where it is prioritized over perpetrator blaming. If some shitheel abuses another person and your immediate or primary reaction is to focus on what the victim could or should have done differently to avoid the abuse, you are victim blaming.
I very much doubt it. Certainly, nobody in the thread is advocating any such position, AFAICT.
Why would anyone consider your cite-free opinion as to which girls sex offenders prefer to assault worth more than a gob of spit? Do you have some special insight into the minds of sex offenders?