How about “your breasts are really big!” To a woman who in fact has significantly larger than average breasts?
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.
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:
With regard to which, GreysonCarlisle remarked:
To which Banquet Bear replied:
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.
No, (and at the risk of objectifying breasts), whether or not breasts are beautiful is not factual.
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.
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’?
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.
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”.
:dubious: 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?
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?
Getting too old for this shit, not old enough to retire.
This is what he 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.”
I’m not sure what context I could take that except “a woman cannot reduce her chances of being assaulted significantly by changing her behavior”
How about this: Do you, Kimstu, think that a women can reduce her chances of being sexually assaulted by altering her behavior? It’s a yes or no question. Answer “yes” or “no”
All I can think here is - maybe you should come back to this thread when you’re sober.
All I can think is maybe a person who thinks “Your breasts are beautiful” is a factual statement should leave this thread.
…that was the first of many mistakes you have made.
An admission of hyperbole seems in conflict with your repeated claims that your assertions were a “simple fact.” Perhaps you should dial back on the hyperbole and stick with the simple facts you can actually prove.
That’s just moving the question one turtle down. Or do you feel an Romulan mathematician struggling with Asperger’s’ compulsion to fact check every non-strictly-factual assertion you come across ? I’m going to assume no. Which brings us to : why feel the need to rebut that particular one, in that particular manner ? What’s your purpose in the rebuttal ?
…yep.
The context you took it in is incorrect.
It isn’t a yes or no question.
Carry on then! (I took that suggestion in the OP as figurative not literal- apologies if I was in error)
…which poster are you talking about?
Fair enough. I’m used to using hyperbole to show how ridiculous a poster’s wide sweeping general statements are, but I guess I can use specific to basic facts to rebut your statement.
“You are wrong. People, including women, can alter their behavior to avoid unwanted outcomes”