That may have just summed up the discrepancy in what I said and the way people are responding. I didn’t criticize anyone for thinking random men on the street were a threat.
I criticized implying that the men posting to the thread may be rapists i.e. the “haven’t assaulted anyone (yet!)” comment that brought me into the thread, and then later I criticized calling Bricker’s invitation a demand. The discussion they were having (or not really having as she posted only to say she wouldn’t be responding) was about nodding in passing on the street.
I added tangentially, and unrelated to the criticism of the ‘demand’ accusation, that by the way a random guy walking down the street is statistically highly unlikely to be a sexual predator - meaning, going to commit a physical, sexual assault on a random woman walking past him whether she nods or doesn’t nod. That wasn’t a blanket statement that also covered uncomfortable experiences, awkward pickup attempts, cat calling, etc. Just physical assault, and it wasn’t a criticism, and my britches weren’t in a bunch.
This seems really disingenuous given your experience on this board. The culture is such that extended hijacks are considered rude and inappropriate no matter the subject, but especially so in threads devoted to painful experiences. I’m confident you wouldn’t derail a thread for people who have lost their children, or who have survived cancer, but for some reason the sexual abuse of women is fair game. And it always has been treated as a special subject on this board for some posters, one where the victims are not afforded the same basic decency afforded to victims of other painful things.
As for the first amendment, surely you grasp the difference between your right to say something and your ethical justification for doing so. Your response in that thread to your fellow suffering humans was flat out disrespectful. Whether it was allowable within board rules is beside the point.
Sure you should. Now for me, violence isn’t too much of an issue yet, I’m getting old but I’m fairly large, and I assume the stranger approaching is just as wary of me, and if he considers me a potential victim then he’s about to prove Darwin’s theory. Men assaulting other men without backup or a gun is very, very stupid and likely to result in a short criminal career. But I do often avoid eye contact or smiling at people because what they do do is ask me for money or the use of my phone, and even on very rare occasions, ask me out. Then there’s the nonsense conversations you get into because you made eye contact with someone who is mildly mentally disabled. But you also tend to pick up a sense of who is likely to be irritating from experience and since women have a lot more at stake I’m sure they are even better at sizing up guys quickly and deciding what the threat level is.
The real issue for women isn’t their caution and distrust of strange men they meet in their everyday activities. Those snap judgments are necessary and a matter of survival. Women go wrong by trusting guys they met days or weeks ago, or even hours ago, and going somewhere alone with them. Real predators know how to camoflauge and a surprising number of women never seem to learn that.
Some people are talking about sex like it’s a thing that often happens in absolute silence, which might be true but runs completely counter to my own experience. Even in the absence of concern about consent there is a lot of communication. So, I don’t understand why this is so difficult.
You’re not reading very well here. I’m not saying the majority of rapes are by strangers.
This is what you said:
I’m saying this is incorrect. There is a very clear correlation between smiling and nodding at someone and then being harassed. Some people may leave the house with big plans for rape, but the majority of rapes probably happen as a result of situational opportunism (between people who know each other, but that is irrelevant because I never mentioned it). Many rapes happen because a man hasn’t been told that anything less than enthusiastic participation is unacceptable. Between partners, perhaps. But that’s not to say that guy decided to impose himself on that person fully aware that it is unwanted. A lot of the time, it’s probably unclear or in the middle or not planned at all. At the very least, you don’t know what you’re talking about with the bit I quoted above.
That’s what I’m addressing, not whether they are strangers or not. I’m well aware that most rape is perpetrated by someone known to the victim, thanks.
As to being related to telling anyone what to do or how to feel: you keep coming back to that. We’re supposed to include men in the convo. Well when we try, we run into this bullshit. See how that works?
This is where you completely lost credibility, AFAIC:
My advice would be to get back to listening to women’s experiences until you can start to contribute. You’re not there yet. Certainly not until you can accept that it is a gender issue.
Anyway, happily I’m off to a literal cabin in the woods for a while so I can leave behind this nonsense. I’ll stick with this: overall it’s a nice theory that men shouldn’t be silenced in this discussion. I agree. There should be space for men. But a lot of the time you let them talk and they go all Crazyhorse. That’s why we have some spaces where men are asked to just listen.
…we aren’t in a debate forum. This is MPSIMS. I am free to make irrelevant observations. Isn’t that the point of this particular forum? Isn’t an irrelevant observation about as mundane and pointless as you can get?
:: offers wry shrug ::
Every perception is equally valid.
Perception of your posts can also be based on your posting history. I remember one time you posted a thread that purported to be about the morality of prostitution. But it wasn’t really about the morality of prostitution. As deduced by other members, it was about something else entirely. I wasted my time contributing to that thread because you had no intention of actually debating its premise.
So is it wrong for me to view your post in the context of our previous interactions? That you may or may not be pulling a similar stunt again?
Which post was that?
Thats a wishy washy answer. Or to be precise, a very lawyerly answer. I think you are saying “no it isn’t problematic.” Because you didn’t actually say anything that could actually be problematic. What parts of what I said do you find problematic again?
Why would that be? Why are you opposed to voluntary “safe spaces” in a private forum? Our “rights” are already abridged here. I can’t call you a bad name. I have to follow the rules. Why is it not important to you that you can’t call me a bad name, but you will work diligently to stop rules to make “assertions to go unchallenged?”
And I wouldn’t expect anything else from the Dope’s resident legal expert. I hope you didn’t take that response as hostile. That wasn’t my intent. No matter what your perception.
Well obviously I don’t live in the United States. It has no relevance to me as the basis of free speech laws that don’t surround me and animates none of the legal framework in which I operate. I’m sure you could nit-pick my answer. But we are in MPSIMS: and I’m really not interested in a debate about something that has so little significance in my real life.
There’s bad victim blaming and good victim blaming. Bad victim blaming is, “Why were you walking around alone? Why were you wearing that? Did you provoke him?” is bad victim blaming. People have a God-given right to go from point A to point B wearing whatever they want without getting assaulted. No one has an expectation, man or woman, that they can go to a stranger’s house, and only good things will happen when you get there. Even for men, that’s a classic setup for a robbery or worse.
People do have an expectation that they can go home with strangers and everything will be fine?
So that NBA player who brought two women he had met at a club to his house and woke up to a million dollars in jewelry missing, he had every right to expect that his decision was reasonable?
Yes. If someone steals from you, this is criminal. In general, you are not required to be at the maximum alert at all times not to be victimized. I would visit a friend for a drink whether said friend was gay or not, and I would invite people home if the occasion seemed suitable.
I am aware that my opinion may be influenced by living in a very low-crime area, but I have lived in countries of higher crime.
But by the very same logic, I am free to comment on your irrelevant observations.
Right?
We’ll agree to disagree.
Your memory is faulty. As I explained very clearly in this post in that thread, I was offered a topic for debate, and was swayed by the arguments made. Indeed, several people initially shared the view that I was somehow arguing something different… but not all of them continued holding that view as the thread progressed:
It was inaccurate. I think “wrong” carries a stigma of some moral flaw. You were simply in error.
To review, you asked, “Is it problematic for women, in a thread called ‘Women: share your stories of having your crotch grabbed (when you didn’t want it)’ for women to actually share their stories of having your crotch grabbed (when you didn’t want it)? Is it problematic that the people participating in that thread didn’t want it hijacked by people determined to talk about something else?”
And I answered your question and went on to explain my view of what constitutes hijacking and how a subject develops organically in a thread…
Because the overall mission of the site is the fight against ignorance, and that fight is crippled in a medium that isolates assertions from challenge. I approve of the mission and want to work against a change.
Calling another poster – even me – a bad name is an example of a logical fallacy. It, too, hampers the fight against ignorance.
OK. Noted.
You say “obviously,” but in fact I didn’t know until now. So when you chimed in, discussing the phrase “…this country…” as being a place without a guaranteed safe space, to which country were you alluding?
Someone expressed that the depth of their pain was so great that witnessing repeated hijacks and denialism of their experience had effectively driven them into silence. And your response, however eloquent, was basically, “Well, good.” Returning to my original example, let’s say the thread were intended for parents who had lost children. If one of the people in that thread had expressed a view - - say a patently offensive, incorrect view - - that needed to be challenged, would you carry on that debate within that thread, effectively taking the attention off the bereaved and their collective need to be heard? Would you start a new thread to discuss that point out of respect for their pain? Or would you instead justify the disruption based upon the need for everyone to always challenge ignorance at every time, in every place, regardless of the context?
Would you mind linking to the post in which someone expressed that the depth of their pain was so great that witnessing repeated hijacks and denialism of their experience had effectively driven them into silence? And then to my response?
I ask because I don’t think that exchange happened. But perhaps I was blind to what was being said.
I cannot say. A lot would depend on whether the assumption had been challenged by other posters and a conversation had developed already. I’d feel less restrained about joining a discussion in progress than starting one.
I am not Spice Weasel, but I am guessing these are the posts in question.
Perhaps you don’t discern any pain in the first post, but I certainly do. If women have no space to discuss painful experiences, without having our experiences attacked, then what is the point of sharing them> Why go through painful recounting only to be told “Your experiences doesn’t count,” or “You have no right to feel threatened by that?”
And perhaps you didn’t mean “well,good” in your reply, but it did come across that way to me. You intend to work diligently to continue to ensure that women have no space to discuss painful experiences without being challenged on how legitimate our pain actually is.