A good thing, for the most part.
I’ll join the chorus. “And me!”
This one I disagree with. SA has been a poster around here more than long enough to know better, in my opinion. But I suppose any further discussion about this specific topic should go to ATMB.
Back the topic at hand.
Starving Artist, you’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
You’re probably right, but he would never admit to any travails. He thinks every post he makes is a devastating, debate-ending blow. Why else would he end a post like this:
I get the feeling that every time he hits “Submit Reply,” he’s thinking that surely this time everyone will slink away in shame and defeat.
All that’s missing is the “I’ve got PMs from people who agree with me!” argument.
I think something like this has been offered before, but I want to chime in with a thought on SA’s psyche:
One main reason he so strongly defends folks like Paterno, Cosby, and others, is that his sense of self and worldview is so wrapped up in the idea that 1950s America was as nearly perfect a time and place as any in human history that any suggestion that it may have been profoundly screwed up in some ways must be rejected, no matter the evidence. His psyche just couldn’t handle the fact that, for most who weren’t white males, 1950s (and 60s, and 70s, in many ways) America was a pretty ugly place to live, and a profoundly unequal society. It just doesn’t jive in his world view that men could get away with multiple rapes, and women did not feel at all safe in reporting a rape that didn’t involve a stranger in the bushes with a knife, due to the feelings and actions of society and police at the time.
So I think it’s very possible that he’s just constitutionally incapable of accepting anything like this.
Nonsense. I’ve said repeatedly on this board that the 50s and 60s had plenty of problems and that they look good only in comparison with the way things in this country are now. Believe it or not there are many things that define life in a country besides race and rape, and a great many of them were better during that time.
Besides, I don’t know if you’ve noticed but it’s not like rape, racial problems and child abuse have been eradicated in post-hippie America. And you know why that is? It’s because the vast majority of what’s gotten worse since then wasn’t made worse with the idea in mind of curing those ills. The claim they were is just a handy excuse.
No, things were much, much worse then, at least for most non-white-males, in terms of opportunity, equal treatment, sexual discrimination, etc. Those times look very, very bad compared to now, except for in a few economic metrics.
Rape, racial problems, and child abuse have gotten much better since then – largely because now it’s actually okay to talk about them publicly – but many problems still exist… women who report sexual violence still often face skepticism and outright dismissal from police and society in general.
I don’t know that that qualifies as making them much better. They still occur just as much and that’s the metric that matters.
Racial problems, which include things like segregation, lynchings, police mistreatment (like beatings and police dogs), etc., obviously occur less frequently now, though there are still major problems. As to rape and child abuse, there were no good statistics back then, since most incidents were unreported. But I think it’s very foolish to believe that problems that were mostly swept under the rug would be worse after it becomes societally acceptable to talk about them.
No, how people recover is the metric that matters. If people are still being abused, but their abusers get punished, they get therapy, and their experiences are not treated as shameful lies, then the situation has improved.
Leaving aside the issue of whether the world was better in the 50s and 60s, or whether the specific matters being discussed have increased or decreased in prevalence, I disagree with the quoted statement as a general rule.
IMO, widespread discussion and acknowledgment of an issue cuts both ways. On the one hand it serves to educate and raise awareness and so on. But OTOH, there are a lot of people who will be deterred from something that they perceive as shocking and completely outside the bounds of normal human behaviour. Constant publicity about an issue, accompanied by attempts to portray it as being fairly common, would lessen this deterrent aspect.
Again, this is not the sole factor in play, but it also has a role, and the notion that problems could become worse from societal discussion is not a foolish one.
This seems contrary to common sense, just based on my sense – it seems like an environment in which rape was never even discussed would be a perfect place for a rapist. Do you know of any examples of issues that were actually shown to be made worse once they came out publicly?
The homicide rate in the US in 1958 was 4.8.
The homicide rate in 2012 was 4.7.
No doubt there was a huge spike in between, but our 20 year decline has brought us to parity with the 50s.
Let’s see if we can find other data on other factors for comparison. It’s worth considering that the halcyon days were not particularly more halcyon-y.
I don’t have any data on anything. But I know of a lot of people who take an “everyone does it” attitude to justify their trangressions to themselves, and to the extent that there’s a lot of publicity about these issues with people harping about how prevalent it is, this attitude would be encouraged.
[As noted, I think discussion could cut both ways, and I’m not making any definitive claims - and it might vary by issue. My point here is just that it’s not “foolish” to think that such discussion might increase the prevalence.]
Okay, I disagree. I think it is indeed foolish – the risk to a perpetrator is much, much lower in an environment in which the action is not discussed, and to discuss it would be deemed shameful.
We recently got Turner Movie Classics, so my wife and I are catching up with some old movies. Go back and watch some 50s movies - the values they depicted were often horrifying compared to today’s standards. For example, in Pillow Talk, there’s a scene in which a guy tries to force himself on Doris Day, at times physically aggressively and otherwise in a highly coercive manner. She rebuffs him successfully, but the whole thing is played VERY lightly, as if it were unremarkable.
If that was the depiction in mainstream movies, it’s scary to think about women’s daily lives.
Well, for one thing, it was a movie, and therefore not all that typical of the average person’s everyday life!
And for another, people back then could COPE with things. Women were very adept at handling pushy guys, and pushy guys by and large were not rapey guys and would stop once it became clear their advances weren’t going to be successful.
Trust me, women are far more scared today than they ever were then. Children too.
Why on earth would we trust you on this? Unless there’s something you’re not telling us, you have zero experience as a woman in any time period.
Of you?! :eek:
No shit. That was the point. If they depicted the experience in such a light manner, what would women in reality think or expect about how to respond?
First things first. The problem is NOT that women today should just COPE with date rape or with other sexual assault experiences. You sick fucker - the ideal situation is NOT one in which men get pushy for sex and women fight them off! That’s coercive and potentially threatening behavior, you horrific caricature of a human being.
Secondly, the only way you could know that pushy did or did not turn rapey is if you were personally involved.