…who are you claiming “is wrong”? What does this strawman have to do with anything I’ve actually said?
No, this makes no sense.
55% of assaults occur at home. 45% occur elsewhere (if you look at the chart, another 12% are at a family member’s home - so only 33% of assaults occur away from home or family). If a woman never leaves home, then she is not increasing her safety, she is decreasing it. She increases her safety by getting the fuck out of her house.
Unless you’re playing a game with the word “could”, in which case I “could” do a lot of things, like win the lottery or write a best-selling novel.
Yup. Do you genuinely not understand that that was a critique of the biased way SamuelA was using that remark? In other words, as I said, Banquet Bear was pointing out that SamuelA’s claim was not a mere neutral observation, but a deliberate framing of the issue to disproportionately emphasize the woman’s own alleged responsibility.
If you don’t understand that, okay, never mind, it may dawn on you later. But if you do understand it, then stop trying to deliberately ignore that context in your interpretation of the statement.
Of course it’s not a “yes or no question”. It depends on the particular circumstances whether a woman can reduce her chances of being sexually assaulted by altering her behavior.
Honestly, manson1972, when you keep insisting on considering that sentence entirely out of the context in which it was being discussed, it doesn’t make the sentence look ridiculous: it just makes you look, as I said, wilfully obtuse. (Or possibly drunk, as Riemann noted.)
If 45% of head injuries occur outside the home, then that appears to imply that 55% of injuries occur in the home.
In other words, head injuries are more likely to occur in the home than outside. The home is a more dangerous environment, as far as head injuries are concerned, than the world outside the home.
So someone who stays home is confining themselves to an environment with higher risk of head injury, so they are increasing their risk of head injury.
Of course, we’d need more details on the specific etiology of head injuries to assess the risk levels more precisely. But you seem to be trying to argue that staying at home automatically eliminates that entire 45% of risk of head injury. That’s just flat-out wrong.
Not if the risk of dying in a car accident in your area was higher for pedestrians than for car occupants. In that case, the more you walked instead of riding in a car, the more you’d raise your chances of dying in a car accident.
I like your adjective “statistically”. Because yep, statistically true isn’t always true. Locking yourself in your room doesn’t do much if your assaulter lives in the same house. One current example.
Saying that if women wore burkas they’d lessen their chances of getting raped is ridiculous because it implies rape is a sexually motivated crime triggered by what a woman is wearing. It’s not. Few sexual assault victims wear “sexy” clothes at the time of their assault.
You want to know what I was wearing when I was assaulted in a park in broad daylight? Sneakers. Jeans. A long-sleeved button-down blouse. A coat, fully buttoned. Do you really think a burka would have spared me? Burkas are common in Afghanistan. So is rape.
Check out clothes rape victims wore. Then tell us women how wearing a burka would protect us.
Note: You don’t have to be personally racist or misogynistic to say something racist or misogynistic. The underlying stumbling block could be that you don’t get that.
One of the visible pieces is a little child’s dress. 6yo at the most, and that if she was a very small 6yo.
Fair enough. I heard that almost half of childhood concussions happen off the football field, so I made my kid play football all the time, figuring that would cut his risk of concussion nearly in half.
Even smaller risks can be mitigated this way: since 10% of lung cancer cases aren’t caused by smoking, I took up smoking, cutting my risk by 10%.
I can go on if it’d be helpful.
I think you have some unstated assumptions here, like “your home is a literal [del]fortress[/del]padded cell” and “no-one else who could [del]rape you[/del] wack you upside the head lives with you”.
Are you making those sorts of assumptions?
Your sin was recognizing the agency of anyone who is not white, male, rich, or some combination of the three.
The evangelical left will settle for nothing less than atonement.
In this thread I have learned that statistics are quite confounding.
It beggars belief.
It’s not about “sin”, it’s about factual error. manson1972 is either failing or refusing to recognize some fundamental points: for instance, about the basic statistics of evaluating risk, and about the importance of context in assessing whether a particular claim is nothing but a “simple fact”.
Did you mean to have that “not” in there? Or did you miss a second “not” before “recognizing”? Because otherwise this makes no sense.
But lol, “evangelical left”, how droll :rolleyes:
Thank ghod someone is courageous enough to come to the defense of the rich and powerful white men.
I think he’s criticizing the way we left-wing loonies portray people as helpless victims all the time - if we’d just acknowledge that rape victims (and presumably poor people, slaves etc.) have some agency, then maybe they could stop feeling sorry for themselves, get their wits together and take action to improve their situation.
It very much depends on the statement itself.
Criminals are opportunists. Suggestions I would accept as helpful are general safety tips that lesson risk such as, “keep track of your drinks”, “go out with friends or a date”, “valet park or be sure to park in a public, well-lit place”.
Suggestions I would deem as sexist would be, “don’t make yourself look so alluring”, “stay out of clubs”, etc.
Why is it the burden of women to avoid being assaulted when it is men who need to be controlled? Anywhere there are men, women are at some risk. Why not just confine men to their bedrooms instead?
How ridiculous! men say. We’d lose our freedom!
Irony.
My guess is that Will Farnaby thinks that scolding a rape victim for her “rape-able” behavior counts as “recognizing the agency of anyone who is not white, male, rich, or some combination of the three”.
See, because when your response to rape is to focus on what the rape victim could/should have done to “reduce her chances of being assaulted”, rather than on changing our cultural message to men that it’s okay for them to sexually assault women, you’re “recognizing her agency”, dont’cha know. :rolleyes:
In other words, we just need to stop being so darn rapeable.