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

[HelenGawn]

@Slash1972

Sure, but I’m not sure how to do it. But here is the thread where a poster 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.”

And I disagreed with that. And used hyperbole to point out how ridiculous that statement was, but then was accused of being racist and misogynistic.

Sorry: This was a response to Kimstu, and I forgot to quote and was late.

For what it’s worth, that’s exactly how I took it. I was confused by the response in the ATMB thread and baffled by the responses.

BTW, this result happens in many of your posts that I see as attempting to present an unconsidered side for the purpose of discussion. That was Bricker’s MO but really just a set-up in his case. Expanding on your purpose can alleviate that response.

I’m not saying you should, just that it can.

[Ann_Hedonia]

@Odesio

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with talking about steps one can take to mitigate risks. I make sure my house is well lit, locks are secure, and my shrubbery doesn’t obstruct the view of doors and windows from the street in order to make my house less attractive to burglars. But when my neighbor’s house is broken into I won’t tell him he could have avoided this situation it if only he did x, y, or z.

I want to continue with this analogy. Blaming victims because of how they are dressed is akin to blaming the homeowner for the burglary because he owned expensive stuff. Or telling the car theft victim that it’s his fault because he had an expensive car. It’s sort of ridiculous. And similarly, no one should be expected to curtail ordinary activities, like going out at night or social drinking, in the name of risk mitigation. It might work, but there is always a risk/reward calculation. And people shouldn’t be expected to give up the rewards of life in the name of risk mitigation.

But if leave your expensive car with the doors unlocked and open and the keys in the ignition on the bad side of town, you bear some responsibility.

There are women who engage in extremely risky behavior. I know. I’m talking about behavior like getting into vehicles or going to remote areas with men they meet in bars because they are promised drugs. Behaviors like getting blackout drunk in the basement of a frat house or nightclub. Behaviors like getting intoxicated and fully undressing at a party. I’m talking about self-destructive behaviors that are usually linked to substance abuse.

And if a woman (or man, for that matter) is engaging in these behaviors, she needs to take a good hard look inward. Because if something hasn’t happened to her yet, it probably will. And when it does, I’ll consider her to be a victim, but a victim that failed to take care of herself properly. And I hope she would take a good hard look at her behavior and learn from the experience.

If I sound harsh it’s because that used to be me. Except for the undressing at a party, that was friend of mine. But, I think those women can decrease their risk of being assaulted significantly by changing their behavior. And I think that they should.

[thorny_locust]

@HelenGawn

For what it’s worth, that’s exactly how I took it. I was confused by the response in the ATMB thread and baffled by the responses.

Are you also baffled by all the responses in this thread explaining why the statement manson1972 called “ridiculous” was not ridiculous?

[HelenGawn]

@thorny_locust

Are you also baffled by all the responses in this thread explaining why the statement manson1972 called “ridiculous” was not ridiculous?

Yes, I do. The statement and the one that was a response to are both far more complex. The second was making that assertion, while it’s not obvious that the first was.

want to continue with this analogy. Blaming victims because of how they are dressed is akin to blaming the homeowner for the burglary because he owned expensive stuff. Or telling the car theft victim that it’s his fault because he had an expensive car. It’s sort of ridiculous. And similarly, no one should be expected to curtail ordinary activities, like going out at night or social drinking, in the name of risk mitigation. It might work, but there is always a risk/reward calculation. And people shouldn’t be expected to give up the rewards of life in the name of risk mitigation.

It’s not that he owns the expensive stuff, it’s that he didn’t take the reasonable steps thatOdesio took. If I leave my ugly old beater unlocked on the street, it’s more likely to be stolen than if I’d secured it.

[Ulfreida]

Women are assaulted at work.
Women are assaulted at school.
Women are assaulted by their friends
Women are assaulted by their relatives
Women are assaulted walking their dog
Women are assaulted everywhere, there is in fact no safe way to act, dress, talk, be. There are only insanely risky and just normally risky things. It is not the same at all for men. There is no equivalent status. Even black men in the US, who legitimately fear a lot of things white men don’t face, do not have to fear being raped by their boss, or their gym coach, or their uncle. So it really cannot be compared to anything men experience, and I think it is really insulting to try.

[Riemann]

@HelenGawn

If I leave my ugly old beater unlocked on the street, it’s more likely to be stolen than if I’d secured it.

What if (hypothetically) it turns out that, contrary to what you think is obviously true, statistics show that more cars are stolen from their own garage by an acquaintance or family member who has access to the keys than are stolen by a stranger when the car is parked on the street?

[iamthewalrus_3]

@MrDibble

I’m not so sure. If I were to take a rough guess, my circle spends probably 45% at home, 25% at work or commuting and the rest out-and-about (from movies and theatre and clubbing, to eating out or barhopping, to visiting friends, to, you know, out in nature and shit) but I think you’ll find it highly variable. I’d think some firm numbers would be better.

I agree that firm numbers would be better, and I merely hazarded a guess that people spend more time at home and thus that it’s actually safer. Obviously, a real analysis requires a lot more data.

Also, time you spend at home sleeping probably should count less (if my assumption that you’re a lot less likely to hurt your head while sleeping is true).

Your circle is not average! Based on the activities mentioned, you’re a relatively young adult, employed, have expendable income, and don’t have children. Change any one of those factors and you’d be spending more time at home. Parents spend more time at home. Kids and teenagers spend more time at home. Unemployed people spend more time at home. Small children and the elderly spend almost all their time at home. You’re probably in like the 80th percentile for “least time spent at home”.

But again, my point wasn’t really about where head injuries will occur, but that you can’t look simply at the percentages the way that the post I responded to did to get that information. I think that general point is mostly appreciated in the thread.

@Riemann

I think if you read the thread more carefully, you’ll see that most of the data that were brought up are to challenge OP’s assumption that he has adequate information to support his claims as “simple facts”, to point out that he is making unwarranted assumptions that certain things are obviously true when they are not.

My failure to correct other statistical errors in this thread should not be read as an endorsement of them. I agree that the OP has made some pretty silly statements as well.

If you want to argue against people making silly statements with bad reasoning, it’s probably best not to double down with other silly statements based on bad reasoning.

On the broad topic of the thread, I agree that it is possible to reduce your risk of being a victim of some crimes by the choices that you make, and that noting those things isn’t necessarily victim blaming, but sometimes is. And of course there’s nothing you can do to completely eliminate risk, which is terrible.

[Riemann]

@iamthewalrus_3

…If you want to argue against people making silly statements with bad reasoning, it’s probably best not to double down with other silly statements based on bad reasoning.

I think you mean “counter” rather than double down.

But you should get off your high horse about this, because your failure to read the whole thread and understand the context meant that you actually missed what was important about Kimstu’s post. Perhaps it wasn’t stated with perfect clarity, but it wasn’t a “silly statement based on bad reasoning”. The context was that OP had made unwarranted assumptions in claiming that his conclusions were obviously true. Kimstu showed that there exist* perfectly plausible assumptions in an analogous hypothetical about relative risk at home vs outside that could falsify OP’s claims. The point was to cast doubt on OP’s unwarranted certitude through counterexample, not to rigorously prove something.

*Kimstu’s implicit assumption that we might spend about half of our time at home is no more “silly” than your own unsupported “guess” that it’s more than 55%.

[thorny_locust]

@HelenGawn

Yes, I do. The statement and the one that was a response to are both far more complex. The second was making that assertion, while it’s not obvious that the first was.

???
Can you rephrase that? I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re trying to say.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Riemann

I think you mean “counter” rather than double down.

Possibly? I meant double down as in “make twice as bad/severe”. Maybe it’s a bit awkward. Was it unclear, or are you poking at my word choice to enheighten your own horse?

But you should get off your high horse about this, because your failure to read the whole thread and understand the context meant that you actually missed what was important about Kimstu’s post.

You keep saying I didn’t read the thread. I did read the thread. I understand the context. I simply didn’t comment on the rest of the thread.

Perhaps it wasn’t stated with perfect clarity, but it wasn’t a “silly statement based on bad reasoning”. The context was that OP had made unwarranted assumptions in claiming that his conclusions were obviously true. Kimstu showed that there exist* perfectly plausible assumptions in an analogous hypothetical about relative risk at home vs outside that could falsify OP’s claims. The point was to cast doubt on OP’s unwarranted certitude through counterexample, not to rigorously prove something.

*Kimstu’s implicit assumption that we might spend about half of our time at home is no more “silly” than your own unsupported “guess” that it’s more than 55%.

I’m not convinced that that is the correct way to interpret Kimstu’s post. There’s a difference between relying on an unstated assumption and not understanding how conditional probability works. Failure to consider the conditional is an extremely common way that people are misled by statistics, so I don’t think it’s totally unreasonable for me to assume that someone who doesn’t mention it at all is not actually making an unstated assumption about reality, but is instead missing an essential element of the calculation. We could just wait for Kimstu to respond and clarify rather than both guessing, though.

I mean, obviously the point that Kimstu was responding to was very wrong, but the response is also wrong, even though it’s closer to right.

So, the difference between my (admittedly not-particularly-evidence based) guess and the implicit one is that mine acknowledges a piece of information that is relevant (even if we don’t know for sure what it is) and the implicit one doesn’t.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@iamthewalrus_3

I agree that firm numbers would be better, and I merely hazarded a guess that people spend more time at home and thus that it’s actually safer. Obviously, a real analysis requires a lot more data.

Real data, such as the actual percentage of head injuries that happen at home? I thought it was obvious that I was making up a number to illustrate the point, so deep-diving into that invented number is totally useless.

The point is that, without this sort of data, we cannot possibly know whether manson’s “simple fact” is even a fact, and so it’s definitely not simple.

[Riemann]

@iamthewalrus_3

You keep saying I didn’t read the thread. I did read the thread. I understand the context. I simply didn’t comment on the rest of the thread…

I mean, obviously the point that Kimstu was responding to was very wrong, but the response is also wrong, even though it’s closer to right.

Then it seems pretty obtuse to ignore the OP’s more egregious errors, and focus criticism on Kimstu’s post. Wouldn’t it be better to frame your own response as making an improved restatement of Kimstu’s valid underlying point - that the OP’s certitude is unwarranted - with the greater statistical rigor that you’re advocating?

[Chingon]

People are doing a great of reinforcing how they view women as property.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@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.

Also, I meant to say that this was a great post. I’ve been talking about the statistical silliness, but feeling a little off about doing even that, given the deeper issues you’re bringing up here.

[MandaJo]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Also, I meant to say that this was a great post. I’ve been talking about the statistical silliness, but feeling a little off about doing even that, given the deeper issues you’re bringing up here.

Thank you! The “statistical silliness” is important, though, because it goes right to the heart of the problem: thw message is always “maybe it’s not fair, and I can see why women don’t like it, but it’s true”. It’s a poisonous argument because any response is met with "sweet little bleeding heart liberals can’t stand to face a hard truth " And its infuriating because the issue is not that I am having the vapors over here, it’s that it’s actually bad advice. With the exception of “don’t get shit-faced,” it’s ALL bad advice.

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Riemann

Then it seems pretty obtuse to ignore the OP’s more egregious errors, and focus criticism on Kimstu’s post. Wouldn’t it be better to frame your own response as making an improved restatement of Kimstu’s valid underlying point - that the OP’s certitude is unwarranted - with the greater statistical rigor that you’re advocating?

I think the general response has pretty well dispensed with the OP’s bad claims. They are so clearly wrong that I don’t know that I can help explain further to someone who doesn’t already think so.

You seem to be viewing my posts here through a tribal lens: since I have pointed out a flaw in an argument on the side you agree with, I must have bad intentions or agree with the OP. That’s not what I’m trying to do. I commented on Kimstu’s post because it included a common and pernicious error that causes statistics to mislead people, often subtly.

You see this kind of thing everywhere:

“x% of auto accidents occur within 1 mile of one’s home”
“x% of <population group> have felony convictions”
“People wearing life jackets survive x% of the time they fall overboard from a boat”

The implication is that driving near your house is dangerous, that <population group> are a bunch of criminals, that life jackets will keep you safe. But the implications are not supported by the statistical statement, even if the statement is correct.

In order for those statistics to provide meaningful information, you need to know the percentage of driving that occurs within 1 mile of one’s home, the percentage of others with felony convictions, and the survival rate for people not wearing life jackets, respectively.

@Left Hand of Darkness

I thought it was obvious that I was making up a number to illustrate the point, so deep-diving into that invented number is totally useless.

Right, we’re all doing that. I’m saying that, given a made up number for the sake of argument, you need another made up number to make sense of it.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@MandaJo

Thank you! The “statistical silliness” is important, though, because it goes right to the heart of the problem: thw message is always “maybe it’s not fair, and I can see why women don’t like it, but it’s true”. It’s a poisonous argument because any response is met with "sweet little bleeding heart liberals can’t stand to face a hard truth " And its infuriating because the issue is not that I am having the vapors over here, it’s that it’s actually bad advice. With the exception of “don’t get shit-faced,” it’s ALL bad advice.

The thing that gets me–and to be fair it gets me after someone pointed it out to me on this messageboard–is that there’s pretty much no advice on how not to get sexually assaulted that a grown-ass man is gonna give to a grown-ass woman that she doesn’t already know.

This is like how I, as a very pale-skinned guy, don’t want you tanned SOBs out there to give me advice on avoiding sunburn. “Have you thought about wearing sunscreen? Hey, you could always try a hat if you don’t want to burn! You KNOW, Dorkness, that if you go inside during the peak hours of 10 am to 2 pm, you’re avoiding the worst risks!” Thanks, geniuses, but this is my life, I know this shit.

There may be specific exceptions: “Ooh, Liza, I saw you flirting with Jim, but you should know he’s got a reputation of being a real skeezeball, be careful.” “You want to go to Club Legend? Really? Did you read that their bartender was arrested for assaulting an underage girl there last week?” Or maybe you’re a martial arts instructor teaching a class to people who have paid to show up, in which case, get down with your expertise.

But the general sort of Captain Obvious advice, the “Don’t drink too much at frat parties” advice, the “don’t walk alone down dark streets at 2 am” advice, the advice that usually comes up in threads, isn’t exactly gonna be revelatory to anybody.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@iamthewalrus_3

There are a lot of bad statistics in this thread, but I’m just going to highlight this one.

There is not enough information to make this claim. You need to know the relative amount of time that people spend inside and outside the home.

That’s why the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH after the bit you quoted said,

@Kimstu

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.

To accuse other people of viewing things through a tribal lens, you’re having to ignore your own flaws in understanding other folks’ posts.

[MandaJo]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The thing that gets me–and to be fair it gets me after someone pointed it out to me on this messageboard–is that there’s pretty much no advice on how not to get sexually assaulted that a grown-ass man is gonna give to a grown-ass woman that she doesn’t already know.

This is like how I, as a very pale-skinned guy, don’t want you tanned SOBs out there to give me advice on avoiding sunburn. “Have you thought about wearing sunscreen? Hey, you could always try a hat if you don’t want to burn! You KNOW, Dorkness, that if you go inside during the peak hours of 10 am to 2 pm, you’re avoiding the worst risks!” Thanks, geniuses, but this is my life, I know this shit.

There may be specific exceptions: “Ooh, Liza, I saw you flirting with Jim, but you should know he’s got a reputation of being a real skeezeball, be careful.” “You want to go to Club Legend? Really? Did you read that their bartender was arrested for assaulting an underage girl there last week?” Or maybe you’re a martial arts instructor teaching a class to people who have paid to show up, in which case, get down with your expertise.

But the general sort of Captain Obvious advice, the “Don’t drink too much at frat parties” advice, the “don’t walk alone down dark streets at 2 am” advice, the advice that usually comes up in threads, isn’t exactly gonna be revelatory to anybody.

One of my favorite threads about this was a guy who rode motorcycles, and he started out saying that after an accident, they always debriefed to talk about what they could have done differently–even if they weren’t at fault, and why was it so wrong to do that after a sexual assault? And I said that it was exactly what you are saying–it’s not other experts helping figure it out, it’s people saying “why do you even want to ride a motorcycle?” and “why didn’t you ride on the sidewalk?” and “You should wear a helmet”.

But it’s worse than just being useless advice, it often comes at a high price–I know women–a lot of women–who won’t drive by themselves from Dallas to Austin, who would never move alone to a strange city, who don’t work overtime because they don’t want to walk through the parking lot alone after dark because in their perception, these activities are too risky. Rational risk analysis says they probably aren’t–again, it’s not the guy in the dark alley that gets you–but it’s easy advice for loving relatives to give you “just in case” and it adds up to a much more limited life–and it hurts you professionally.

It can also be dangerous. The idea that sexual assault happens to girls who dress a certain way, act a certain way–even though there’s no evidence that any of that “inspires” a rapist–can lead to a false sense of security and a tendency to underestimate the real red flags–like guys that seem nice but don’t respect boundaries.

[asahi]

It’s not misogynistic, but even if it’s technically true in some cases, it’s still victim blaming.