Mika,
What would you say to me if I went into a predominently Muslim area whilst carrying an Israel flag and declaring the God of the Hebrews is greater than all, then was beaten up?
?
No need to play dumb. You know what you did. Clayton talks about one thing, you talk about another and pretend that is what he was talking about. You have fun with that.
Not playing…
(as if the poster (which he calls a meme) said otherwise. And you want to cry strawmanning on someone else?)
Who’s strawmanning again?
Yes, you are straw manning Clayton, as was Mikachusetts. Clayton’s point had to do with prudence, not morality. Would you try to climb Mount Everest without any experience in hiking or camping? Would you go into the Amazon jungle without serious experience? Would you drive 100 mph in a rain storm? Would you go camping in bear-infested woods?
Maybe you think you should have the right to not be attacked by bears when you go hiking. Maybe you think that you have the right to have your car not skid out of control when driving 100 mph in a rainstorm. Is that what you think?
All Clayton is saying is that given certain circumstances, certain actions are foolish. He is not making any claims about the morality of the victim or the criminal. Here is what you said, and I will bold the sections that are especially damning:
The bold is just not what Clayton was saying. It’s a straw man, period. Furthermore, I underlined your entire last paragraph because it just misses the point. Would you go into a lion pen at a zoo? What about the bears? No? Why? Because it’s fucking suicide. If you live in a town where it is certain that you will be attacked just by going outside, then going outside is clearly dangerous and you need to take precautions if you are to go outside. Does this make the situation right? Of course not. But that is not at all what Clayton was addressing. He was addressing the fact that certain actions are foolish in certain situations. He did not say that the victim is at fault, and he has never said that. He is just saying that people should be more prudent in their actions instead of having an entitled middle class attitude.
Are you for real? I suggest that someone has a right to not get raped, and you come back with “you think you have the right to not have your car skid?”…right after accusing me of strawmanning and “[someone] talk[ing] about one thing, you talk about another and pretend that is what he was talking about.” Is this some kind of trolling thing? Where you accuse me of something and then do the exact thing you’re accusing to allegedly make your point?
Um. Duh. Hence the use of the word “it”…a pronoun used to represent an inanimate thing previously mentioned…in this case the “poster meme”. I never said that’s what Clayton was saying. Obviously he wasn’t saying that. That’s the whole point. The poster said one thing, and Clayton claims it said something else.
Where did Clayton ever say that someone does not have a right to not get raped? He was not addressing rights. Stop making it about rights. He was addressing prudent actions versus foolish actions in a dangerous world.
EDIT: Furthermore, I notice that you delibrately decided to not quote my paragraph:
**
**
Interesting that you would delibrately misrepresent my point in order to call me a troll.
Just stop.
Don’t be a dumbass. Your entire post can be summed up by your last paragraph, which you chose to not address in my post:
Your entire post leads up to this. You start off by saying you agree with Mika’s response to Clayton, and that post too was a straw man of Clayton’s point. You follow up with a lot of muddled writing…perhaps English is not your first language and that is the problem with your communication. But you definitely finished your post with that bullshit straw man above. No one here is blaming the victim, period. The only thing that some posters here are claiming is that some people (in this case some women) need to be more prudent. Notice that I am not saying more prude, which was Mika’s nice little straw man above.
I would say you made a poor judgement (unless you were looking for a fight), and devoid of any context, my response would make perfect sense. But if we were discussing something like how the state subsidizes violence between religious groups by externalizing the cost, and you were to ask me this question, isn’t it clear that it’s besides the point?
No one is disagreeing that certain behaviors or actions put you at risk of certain consequences, whether those risks are rape or a black eye or what have you (though I am not sure the actual extent to which women are raped as a result of poor judgement on their part). This issue I have with bringing up risk taking, as Clayton has, is that it completely sidesteps the actual debate, that is, whether or not slut shaming reinforces and perpetuates rape culture.
What “mentality” - I read your post and I cannot see what “mentality” it is that you are claiming I have.
a) I would, indeed, say you shouldn’t be walking around North Avenue at night… the cops are very dangerous and you should avoid situations - even traffic stops! - that involve interaction of any kind with the police. Do you not read Grigg?
b) The difference between the State and the masses is that the former is a telic entity and the latter are not. The masses are a dispersed interest and their behavior is the result of an incomprehensibly complex mixture of genetics, culture and individual circumstance and choice. It makes no sense to say “this entity should have better ends” if it has no ends at all! In the case of the State, we can point to the particular ends it has and we can criticize their deficiency and provide moral suggestions for change. But the masses are a brute fact of nature, like the ocean. There’s no sense in saying “the ocean should stop sending these evil hurricanes”… hurricanes are a brute fact of nature because there is no telic entity to which we can appeal to change its mind or alter its behavior.
Along with Woods, I’m not acquainted with terminology like “slut shaming” or even “rape culture.”
As I stated already, neither “slut-shaming” nor its opposition has anything to do with libertarianism qua libertarianism because neither involves aggression. This is not to say there isn’t a moral argument to be made one way or the other, of course. Libertarianism is hardly the sum of moral philosophy (contrary to the belief of many libertarians).
But as I already pointed out, just because “libertarian feminists” have devised an argument against the traditional idea that female modesty is commendable on the basis of pointing out how it might slightly and occasionally inconvenience those women who choose to live a Sex and the City lifestyle doesn’t mean the matter is settled. I don’t believe the proponents of libertarian feminism have actually addressed the substance of conservative ideas regarding femininity (which, to reiterate, have nothing to do with libertarianism, per se).
Clayton -
Looks like the masks are coming off… sheesh.
In what context?? You guys keep making these sweeping statements about “blaming the victim” yet you are not specifying the context in which you are claiming this to be the case. Is the self-defense instructor who says to his students, “You are responsible for your own safety, it’s up to you to keep you safe because no one else can and no one else cares” blaming them in the event they get mugged???
A judge who says “you shouldn’t have dressed that way… it’s not his fault” is rendering an unjust judgment. But who here has even hinted that such pronouncements are acceptable??
And why is this discussion being prosecuted at such a lobotomized level?
The masses - people generally - are a force of nature. To suggest that victims maintain a certain dress code at certain times of night, avoid certain areas, not flash valuables or body parts, etc. is no statement about “men”, it is a statement about the human condition, human nature. People take what they can get. Closing your eyes, stopping your ears and saying “la la la la la” doesn’t change anything in this regard. Nor can such posters… shouldn’t we all be drug-free now after all those Just Say No posters?
It’s up to the individual woman to choose how much risk she is willing to take. This is libertarian 101, I don’t even understand how this can be a point of contention.
Clayton -
In the post you took issue with, I said nothing about “slut shaming” or “rape culture.”
Let’s go over it again. The poster’s thesis is “Men should be OFFENDED when someone claims that women should prevent rape.” It goes on to give a bizarre and, to me, unintelligible argumen based on how I will be perceived “as a man” should this view continue to be widespread.
Now, my counter to this poster was to translate it from the emotive and politicized context of rape into the context of a less spectacular crime: mugging. For example, imagine a poster that states: “Poor people should be OFFENDED when someone claims that the rich should prevent mugging.” But this is moronic. If you are wealthy and you own a gold-watch, yes, the onus is on you to keep the watch covered when walking through a part of town where you might get mugged… or better yet, to not even be in that part of town to begin with. The onus is on you not to let someone into your house and see your valuables who might be a robber or thief. The onus is on you, as GL has pointed out, as a matter of prudence, not culpability. Obviously, the mugger is culpable for his actions, not the mugging victim. But the poster isn’t talking about culpability, it’s talking about prevention, which is a question of security (thus, prudence).
From this response, PrimeTime and mikachussetts have managed to reduce the thread to a lobotomized circus of strawmen, red herrings, politicized feminist catchphrases and other gibberish. No wonder they’re shutting this PoS forum down…
Clayton -
+1 Clayton
The sooner you people realize that a hoodlum jumping from the bushes and raping the careless maiden isn’t the problem with rape culture, the better we will all be off.
By clinging to this comforting stereotype, you’re purposefully ignoring that most cases of rape occur in supposedly safe spaces:
Rape often occurs in one’s home - be it apartment, house or dormitory. Very often the rapist is known by the victim in some way and the rape is carefully planned.
By perpetuating this stereotype, which also happens to take hold of LEOs and the judicial system, you’re creating an environment in which a tragic amount of rape victims feel uncomfortable speaking out because people have a completely warped imagination of rape. “You sure you were raped by your boyfriend? You sure it wasn’t consensual?” Since everyone knows rapes are committed by lowlife criminals in back alleys, right?
Your gold watch example also displays a blatant ignorance of the heated debate around sexual consent that has been going on for some time now. Everyone can see that stealing your watch is bad, but what about pressuring a spouse into sexual acts? Taking advantage of drunk people? Accepting no answer as an affirmative answer? These are the actual questions concerning the rape debate, not your white middle class fantasies about otherized criminals preying on girls in slutty dresses.
What, the problem is that not enough men are offended when someone suggests that a woman take some steps to make herself more secure? what is the problem?
the rapist knows the victim? You mean like the rapist knows that the potential victim has nice tits and poor personal security (persec) habits? Is the problem that enough men arent offended by rapes that occur inside the victim’s home? Or is it possibly prudent to maintain good persec even while inside one’s home or domicile? do you mean that the rapist might plan to victimize someone who is more vulnerable? Is the problem that not enough women are flirting with potential rapists and leaing their doors unlocked, so that I need to be offended whenever discretion is offered as part of a preventative program?
thats like the incredible hulk of strawmen. “your lack of taking offense at shit I dont like has erased the idea of acquaintance rape from the minds of leos, judges, and social workers all over the political jurisdictions that you inhabit!”
whats your advice to the woman whose husband pressures her for sex acts she doesnt want to perform? Tell her to purse her lips and shake her ass while she rejects her husband? Am I supposed to be offended when someone explains that getting drunk at a party around people you dont (or shouldnt) trust entails a degree of risk? People shouldnt be risk averse to any degree, they should outlaw the risk of tragic occurrences.
you guys are really into this rape-enabling program, wow.
Thanks Sphairon. I’ve been reluctant to post, because it’s getting frustrating.
Let’s go over it again. The poster’s thesis is “Men should be OFFENDED when someone claims that women should prevent rape.” It goes on to give a bizarre and, to me, unintelligible argumen based on how I will be perceived “as a man” should this view continue to be widespread.
Since I seemed to have started this thread, my thesis is actually along the lines of: Men should combat rape culture in all cases; culturally, emotionally, physically, psychologically, and judicially. It should not simply rest on the woman to defend herself from rape, because “it happens” or merely “rapists exist,” but should confront the problem head on, to go beyond telling a woman how to live in fear because of rapists, but instead confront a culture that breeds rape culture and elements and language of sexism as being okay or tolerable. If you only tell women to defend themselves, but do not teach people the way they view and objectify women in a way that’s demeaning, rape will happen.
Now, my counter to this poster was to translate it from the emotive and politicized context of rape into the context of a less spectacular crime: mugging. For example, imagine a poster that states: “Poor people should be OFFENDED when someone claims that the rich should prevent mugging.” But this is moronic. If you are wealthy and you own a gold-watch, yes, the onus is on you to keep the watch covered when walking through a part of town where you might get mugged… or better yet, to not even be in that part of town to begin with. The onus is on you not to let someone into your house and see your valuables who might be a robber or thief. The onus is on you, as GL has pointed out, as a matter of prudence, not culpability. Obviously, the mugger is culpable for his actions, not the mugging victim. But the poster isn’t talking about culpability, it’s talking about prevention, which is a question of security (thus, prudence).
Strawman. Let’s find all my friends - or better yet everyone, whether female or male, who have been sexually assualted, and tell them it was a bad decision on their part, because they happened to be in a safe environment, with people they knew, and were not wearing “loose” clothing. The precautions they took were not enough. They were raped, it falls on them, right?
Saw this image the other day, and I felt it fits into the idea of how one dresses and how irrelevant it can really be. What standards do people hold? What preconcieved sexist notions do people hold?
I think you’re going about this the wrong way. Your analogous statement is moronic, but for reasons opposite of what you’re using it to illustrate. Poor people get mugged all the time. Implying that only the rich should prevent mugging is classist(?). Yes, yes, I forsee you or someone else coming back and switching the terms back to women and men and rape and claiming “sexist”, but the fact remains rape is by far a men-on-women crime, even if you account for guesstimation of rapes in which men are the victims which then go unreported because the men are too ashamed or embarassed to report them. (And even then, it’s almost never a female offender.)
That being said, your whole point I think would be much better made if you posed it this way:
Do you believe that 100% of all rapes could ever be prevented? i.e., is it feasible for a single rape to never occur? Or is it more likely that no matter what laws, security measures, societal norms, treatment programs, psychotropic drugs, are administered and managed and maintained, the crime of rape will still occur to some degree above zero? If the answer is yes, that Nirvana is not attainable on Earth, then one must admit that rape (and all other forms of aggression) are a natural danger in our world…and one that must be curbed and minimized in the same way all other dangers are.
There are risks of all kinds, everywhere…which make living quite hazardous to one’s health. Precautions are constantly taken—literally every second of every day—to hedge one’s risk of injury, illness, death, and every other possible occurance that people wish to avoid. Murder is no less unethical, and no less illegal than rape…yet you find people saying and doing things to prevent, or not saying and doing things they think might entice someone else (who is likely to act) to murder them. In other words, if someone cuts you off in traffic, and you see the car is filled with people who look like this, you’re much less likely to get out and start screaming profanities at them than if they looked like this. Or this. Why? You’re perfectly within your rights to do so, no matter who cut you off. You should be able speak profanities at whomever you want without having to fear getting murdered. Why do you feel it is necessary to restrain your behavior with one group of bad drivers versus another?
…Because, like in any other life situation, after economizing on information costs you come to the determination that your risk in doing so with one group is much higher than with another…regardless of the fact that it’s still just as illegal to murder you whether you’re in Beverly Hills or Compton. In this context, rape is no different than any other danger one must be mindful of.
Granted, because rape is a fully human-sourced danger (as opposed to, say, a hurricane), it is feasible to contend that the threat could be minimized from the threat end—that is, it is conceivable to have a population with fewer people willing to rape—meaning the risk of rape could actually be lowered without any pro-active measure taken on the part of a would-be victim (unlike a hurricane.) But just because this possibility exists, it does not follow that therefore the would-be victim is free from any responsibility for minimizing the risk from their end.
Just as you are not the cause of the actual damage inflicted to yourself or other property by a storm, you may not be culpable for an assualt you experience…but assessing the risk of the very real danger that exists and preparing and protecting yourself accordingly is within your control and is your responsibility.
By the same token, the poster should probably say something like:
It should be offensive to anyone when someone claims that someone who was raped “was asking for it”, “got what was coming to them”, “got what they deserved”, because of something they wore or said. That line of thinking presumes that rape is an appropriate and just response to nothing more than words and clothing.
I will also say that I have heard of cases in which the victim has effectively been blamed for the aggression they experienced, and in which the aggressor was at least let off the hook, if not made out to be the victim. Indeed, the article linked in the OP of this thread mentions several:
Women who are deemed “sluts” are treated as no longer credible witnesses, because if they want sex or have lots of it, it is apparently inconceivable that they might ever not consent to it. This form of slut shaming was seen in a 2010 gang rape case that was dismissed when it was revealed that the victim had fantasized about group sex. The judge said of the victim, “her credibility was shot to pieces.” In a 2008 sexual battery case in Georgia, the judge made the victim reveal a litany of intimate details about her sex and dating history. This was used to slut shame and humiliate the victim.
Slut shaming is even wielded against the youngest rape victims. When the New York Times covered of a case in which an 11 year old was gang raped, the paper of record saw fit to focus on the girl’s makeup and clothing. Later in the same case, defense attorney Steve Taylor blamed this 11 year old girl for being gang raped, comparing her to a spider luring men into her web.
P.S.
Mugging is real, and it is soooo spectacular.
Wow. Just, wow.
“Men should combat rape culture in all cases; culturally, emotionally, physically, psychologically, and judicially.” ok, youre moralizing, but I can agree with this. I oppose any criminal culture, especially “rape culture” as I define it. Next,
“It should not simply rest on the woman to defend herself from rape” guess what, it does. Thats just a fact, unless you employ special pleading or deny that women are individuals who make their own choices and have to deal with the specter of violence as individuals.
“but should confront the problem head on” well one problem is a vulnerability in personal security. Not sure how pretending that doesnt exist is confronting it head on.
“but instead confront a culture that breeds rape culture and elements and language of sexism as being okay or tolerable.” what about a culture that rejects agency and substitutes classic leftisms like “being offended”? What about a culture that insists that women cannot or should not take responsibility for their own security? Let me guess, these women are supposed to rely on the nobility of the masculine gender to protect them from rape. And we need to bitch at men until they become noble.
“If you only tell women to defend themselves, but do not teach people the way they view and objectify women in a way that’s demeaning, rape will happen.” yah, crime is a fact. Its also gonna happen even if you pretend that men can make it disappear by treating women like human beings. However I hope we can agree that rape will happen a lot less often to women who make good persec decisions, and a lot more often to women who make poor persec decisions.
wtf are you talking about? This para is full of straw. The rapist is liable for the rape. Is that clear enough for you? Now can we stop assuming that “a place where someone gets raped” is a “safe environment” because it obviously isnt.
this kind of stuff is horrible, and every woman should understand that her security is her own responsibility because of all the sick and twisted people out there, she may not be able to trust anyone, least of all the courts.
yes, I can agree with this.
How do you secure yourself against a supposed friend or relative sexually encroaching on you? Not everyone has the mental fortitude to resist this right at the scene, and it doesn’t help that this often happens to minors.
I never wanted to be one of those people, but here goes: check your privilege.
Seriously. Do you have any idea about the subtle inquisition someone is put through when they present themselves as a rape victim without obvious physical damages to show for it? When the rape kit’s useless because the victim was traumatized for too long to do anything, the raised eyebrows and questioning looks can be absolutely painful.
What, it’s the woman who needs advice? Not the asshole rapist husband? You’re making the feminists’ case without realizing it.