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

[Kobal2]

@Slash1972

When a discussion seems to begin to hurt people, that’s when I can switch from “examining edge cases and applicability of general statements to specific scenarios” to “think about what you are saying and try not to insult people who may be victims of assault”

Pretty sure I told that story here before, but a few years ago I dated a girl who confessed to having been groped by mummy’s new boyfriend when she was in her teens ; and I also knew that she’d also been roofie-raped some 10 years back. It of course shocked me, but it also made me realize that my previous girlfriend, and the one before that, and the one before *that *had also dealt with forced sex in one way or another at one point in their lives.
So obviously, being the narcissistic asshole that I am, I wondered if there was something wrong with *me, *whether I was subconsciously falling for (or seducing) victims of abuse, somehow. So I set out on a campaign to figure it out and asked the question to each and every ex, female friend, uni acquaintance and sister I knew well enough to ask something that personal. I didn’t press for details or anything, just told them where I was coming from and to answer yes/no please.

The final tally was two out of a dozen or so. Two had never, ever been. And of the two, one was apparently a close thing. I somehow doubt it was all the same guy on a roll, either. Make of that what you will.

[Babale]

@MandaJo

I think there are several issues here.

One is the idea that playing Devil’s Advocate is somehow a sacred trust and that “Well, to be accurate, in the most technical sense, you are wrong” is a pure and holy way to score points. It’s what Smart People do, and people that resist the Devil’s Advocate are illogical and emotional. This is especially jarring when the issue is entirely hypothetical and an academic exercise for the person playing Devil’s Advocate, but of real and immediate implications by the audience. Treating someone’s actual life like hypothetical ethical situation in Philosophy 101 is off-putting and not productive.

The second is the persistent belief on this board that presentation doesn’t matter, it’s the idea that matters. I’ve said this before–racist and misogynistic statements are allowed to stand because the most charitable interpretation of the underlying idea reveals a possibly interesting discussion, and preserving the possibility of a good discussion is given as enough reason to let the phrasing pass. The example I used is that threads like “Hey, pick: Ginger or Maryann?”, often with flavor text like 'A genie appears and gives you a choice . . . " are offensive because they are objectifying. Then we are off to the races about whether or not the idea of having different levels of attractiveness to different women is inherently offensive, but that was never the issue. The issue is the flavor text, the idea of actresses being a prize genies can give out. It’s like the defenders of the thread don’t even SEE that–it’s like flavor text in a video game no one even reads, so it doesn’t count. But it does–especially if, as a woman, when you read the premise you see yourself as the woman in the narrative–the prize, not the person making the choice. That’s gross. In that same way, manson1972’s original statement was flippant and creepy: the image of a woman draped in cloth, locked in a room is unsettling, if you see yourself as the woman. And the word “Just” makes it sound trivial. So had the statement been something like “If a woman utterly withdrew from society and refused to participate, she could substantially reduce her chances of being assaulted–but that’s obviously ridiculous”, I don’t think we’d be having this conversation.

I’m very late to the party, but as I read through this thread, this post stood out to me as incredibly insightful. This should be stickied.

[Slash1972]

@Kimstu

:dubious: Where was all this concern for the particular as opposed to the general when you were making all those statements about what “women”—not “some women”—could do to reduce their chances of sexual assault?

This is just more nitpicking to conceal the lack of a meaningful substantive argument on your part.

I don’t need that type of concern when discussing what people “could” do. I made no statements about what women “should” do, nor did I make sweeping statements about what “all women” actually do.

[Slash1972]

@thorny_locust

I suggest, in future, starting there. Assume that some of your audience have been assaulted, and think about what you’re saying before saying it in the first place. If called on something you’ve already said, consider that the discussion is already hurting people.

Some discussions need to be had anyway; but if so should be had with attention to phrasing – and to checking, ideally before posting, whether one’s assumptions as to what things are “factual” are correct. Other discussions don’t need to be had at all. And this particular type of discussion is one that many people have already had, over and over and over. It gets wearing.

Sorry, but I don’t believe that there exists any discussions that should not be had at all.

And I’m perfectly fine with believing that the number of bad things that happen outside the home can be lessened by staying in the home.

[Kimstu]

@Slash1972

I made no statements about what women “should” do, nor did I make sweeping statements about what “all women” actually do.

Neither did I make any such “sweeping statements” about “all men”, as you’d have noticed if you read my posts more carefully:

@Kimstu

The problem here, once again, is not merely that so many men are patronizingly offering unhelpful or unsolicited advice to women about reducing sexual assault risk. The problem is primarily that so many men (and many women as well) are unthinkingly perpetuating the mindset that the key issue in reducing sexual assault risk is women’s behavior.

Whether they are suggesting advice or proffering opinions, diagnoses, analyses, whatever, they automatically foreground the question of what women are doing and what women could or should do differently to reduce their risk of sexual assault. Implicit in that approach is the assumption that changing men’s behavior is a notion not worth talking about, even though it’s men’s behavior that is the cause of the problem in the first place.

@Slash1972

This analysis is predicated on assuming that “could” and “should” have no differences in meaning.

@Kimstu

No, it isn’t. Even if you’re only talking about what women “could” do in this context and never use the word “should” at all, my point still stands: the fundamental problem is with constantly foregrounding the behavior and choices of women as the key issue in the context of sexual assault.

@Slash1972

“Constantly” seems like a strong word, especially when applied to someone who doesn’t constantly do that.

[…]

@Slash1972

[…] I’m determined to rebut the fact that men are “constantly” or whatever synonym you use are “foregrounding the behavior and choices of women as the key issue in the context of sexual assault”

Are “some” men doing that? Sure, I’m guessing they are. Perhaps prefacing your statements with “Some men” would alleviate the problems that other men see with such a wide-sweeping statement?

You’re the one who gratuitously chose to misinterpret “so many men” as “all men”, which is not what the phrase means.

[Slash1972]

@Kimstu

Neither did I make any such “sweeping statements” about “all men”

Great! Way to not generalize all men.

[thorny_locust]

@thorny_locust

At any rate, it’s not a factual statement posed as a general statement about women as a whole. Some individual women are safer from rape when they’re home in their bedrooms; others are safer when they’re out and about; for yet others it’s a wash. I’m sure that some individual women are safer if wearing a burka, most individual women are not.

Judging by post #196, manson1972 seems to have figured this out…

@Slash1972

I’m perfectly fine with believing that the number of bad things that happen outside the home can be lessened by staying in the home.

Or maybe not . . .

@Slash1972

Sorry, but I don’t believe that there exists any discussions that should not be had at all.

I don’t think there should be a discussion on these boards of manson1972’s financial details, or, oh, all sorts of stuff. At any rate, not without manson1972’s permission; and probably not in Great Debates, either.

[Kimstu]

@Slash1972

Great! Way to not generalize all men.

Apology accepted. It’s a pity you didn’t notice that I hadn’t done what you were accusing me of before you spent a couple days’ worth of posts whining about it.

[Slash1972]

@thorny_locust

I don’t think there should be a discussion on these boards of manson1972’s financial details, or, oh, all sorts of stuff. At any rate, not without manson1972’s permission; and probably not in Great Debates, either.

Sure, you might think that. But I don’t. If someone finds my financial details so interesting that they want to discuss it, that’s fine with me. I don’t care.

[Slash1972]

@Kimstu

Apology accepted. It’s a pity you didn’t notice that I hadn’t done what you were accusing me of before you spent a couple days’ worth of posts whining about it.

“whining” seems a strong word. Plus, I don’t remember half those posts, so there’s that.

[Kimstu]

@Slash1972

“whining” seems a strong word.

Oh, here we go again.

[Slash1972]

@Kimstu

Oh, here we go again.

Well, I try not to tell people their feelings are wrong, or what they think is wrong. I simply explain my thoughts regarding what they posted. You can take that info however you want.

If you find other posts of mine where I tell people they are wrong, point them out, so I can reconsider what I was thinking at the time.

[Kimstu]

I was just laughing about the apparent reboot of the previous ““Constantly” seems like a strong word” go-round.

[Slash1972]

@Kimstu

I was just laughing about the apparent reboot of the previous ““Constantly” seems like a strong word” go-round.

yeah, I get it.

However, “laughing” seems like a strong word, since in my personal opinion, I don’t think you were actually laughing.

[Kimstu]

Where’s the “hitting other poster with a pillow” smiley?

[Slash1972]

@Kimstu

Where’s the “hitting other poster with a pillow” smiley?

I made a bet with myself that you read my post and said “What a dick!”

did I win?

[Kimstu]

@Slash1972

I made a bet with myself that you read my post and said “What a dick!”

did I win?

Depends which of your posts you’re talking about.

[SciFiSam]

@WillFarnaby

The recipient of the advice decides whether or not to heed the advice. Giving advice does not control anyone. There are barrels-full of bad financial advice coming out every day. This in no way controls financial decisions.

Should society shun bad advice and label it with smear terms such as “racist” and “misogynistic”? Seems a bit much.

Giving advice when you haven’t been asked does control people, when it’s given in a conversation (online or in real life). Newspaper articles aren’t the same thing. In a conversation the unwilling recipient is forced to listen to it and respond, probably forcing themselves to be polite, and often having to spend time explaining why the advice wrong or unnecessary. It’s the adviser controlling the conversation by making it about their ideas rather than the person’s experience. We see it all the time on these boards.

If the advice is so obvious that it seems to assume the recipient is a moron, that also makes the recipient wonder if other people also see them as a moron, which isn’t pleasant.

Obviously not all bad advice is racist or misogynistic, but some is, and sometimes if the advice is really obvious that can seem to be grounded in misogyny, thinking of women as of lesser intellect, or as if they know more about life as a woman than the woman does.

The last time I was sexually assaulted was on a tube train in the middle of the day. What advice could have helped with that? Don’t travel by public transport? Pretty difficult in a big city.

[Chimera]

I’m a man, and it always bothers me to hear people (men and women) blame women for being assaulted based on a display of flesh. Like this idiot political candidate lately, saying if women didn’t show their legs or shoulders or cleavage, they wouldn’t be assaulted.

One, this is flat out dead wrong. Women could all wear hear to toe burkas and they would still be subjected to unwanted comments, harassment and touching.

Two, the real issue is personal responsibility and self-control. If you can’t stop yourself from touching someone because you can see their calves, the issue isn’t them and their calves, it’s your damned lack of self-control. “But but I can see LEG!” is a stupid excuse that is really only an admission of that lack of self-control. An admission of guilt.

If you can’t control yourself from touching, harassing and assaulting others, you should not be allowed to be a part of public society. It doesn’t matter if the people around you are completely naked. It isn’t their fault YOU can’t be an adult.

[octopus]

@Chimera

I’m a man, and it always bothers me to hear people (men and women) blame women for being assaulted based on a display of flesh. Like this idiot political candidate lately, saying if women didn’t show their legs or shoulders or cleavage, they wouldn’t be assaulted.

One, this is flat out dead wrong. Women could all wear hear to toe burkas and they would still be subjected to unwanted comments, harassment and touching.

Two, the real issue is personal responsibility and self-control. If you can’t stop yourself from touching someone because you can see their calves, the issue isn’t them and their calves, it’s your damned lack of self-control. “But but I can see LEG!” is a stupid excuse that is really only an admission of that lack of self-control. An admission of guilt.

If you can’t control yourself from touching, harassing and assaulting others, you should not be allowed to be a part of public society. It doesn’t matter if the people around you are completely naked. It isn’t their fault YOU can’t be an adult.

That’s great and all but literally no one in this thread is arguing contrary to that.