Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

[Phi for All]

12 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

He is repeatedly going back to the claim that I am victim shaming rape victims.

He acts as though I have absolutely no experience with rape victims, and that I'm a sexist bigot.

I know 3 girls personally who were raped. More if you count it as I only know their name and where they live.

He has labeled me in his mind as a sexist and it pisses me off.

When I found out these girls were raped it hurt just as much as it would everyone else. He has the nerve to suggest I don't care about them, I didn't care about them, and that I dismissed them, and he has a level of arrogance that is ignorant to everyone else's experiences except his own.

Use your reasoning filters. Swansont made no claims about you, but did say that some of your arguments made it seem like you were blaming the victim. That's not a claim, that's a really excellent invitation for you to explain your position a little clearer.  

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Use your reasoning filters. Swansont made no claims about you, but did say that some of your arguments made it seem like you were blaming the victim. That's not a claim, that's a really excellent invitation for you to explain your position a little clearer.  

Good point +1, notice Raider no -1 for you...

[Raider5678]

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Use your reasoning filters. Swansont made no claims about you, but did say that some of your arguments made it seem like you were blaming the victim. That's not a claim, that's a really excellent invitation for you to explain your position a little clearer.  

Grudgingly, I admit you're right.

 

I'm gonna back out of this conversation.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Raider5678

[iNow]

36 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's not a perfect world. It a world of compromises. Unfortunately, it has to be. You try for the best compromise. There's no better option out there.

I have to disagree with you here. There ARE better options.

For example, we can speak up, collectively say that enough is enough, and we find a way to reach critical mass and ultimately improve the world we live in. Hopefully, that’s what we’re experiencing now. 

The better option is to address and fix the problems and move past the status quo, it is NOT to sit back and accept things as they are or learn to find peace with an unjust present. 

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

1. I know 3 personally, and people did a lot talking behind their back. Yet I never heard anyone bring up about how it was actually her fault, nor that they were in blame. They brought up stuff that you talked about, including being in a certain place she shouldn't have. But that never proceeded into your claims of people dismissing the rapist with "she was asking for it."

In what way does that show that it never happens?

Quote

3. It's part of the equation because the lawyers are trying to come up with a defense. Whether you think they shouldn't be entitled to a defense or not, ultimately the defense is not going to be pretty. When it come's to rape charges, it's almost always going to come down to the defense trying to prove the accuser is a liar. Because it's almost alway's his word vs her word.

You and Gees were lawyers on the case?

Why are YOU raising these issues?

Quote

5. I did not say it was her fault. You have to realize just because I don't take your position on the matter and it doesn't exactly line up with yours, does not mean I'm clearly a sexist bigot trying to blame the poor girl for what happened. As soon as someone says something contrary to your position you begin a campaign to paint them as a sexist, a racist, or a bigot of some sort. It's not a discussion if the minute I say something contrary, you drag it back to the same point over and over and over and over and over and repeatedly make me say I'm not blaming her. Everything I say gets's caught in this massive glove of yours and is immediately labeled "Sexist argument blaming the girl." It is hard to discuss anything when everything you say is just brought back to a single point.

Did anyone actually accuse you of being any of these things?

I am merely pointing out the conflict between saying she was not at fault, and then pointing to things that make imply she was at fault, and asking that you resolve it.

Quote

He is repeatedly going back to the claim that I am victim shaming rape victims.

He acts as though I have absolutely no experience with rape victims, and that I'm a sexist bigot.

I know 3 girls personally who were raped. More if you count it as I only know their name and where they live.

He has labeled me in his mind as a sexist and it pisses me off.

When I found out these girls were raped it hurt just as much as it would everyone else. He has the nerve to suggest I don't care about them, I didn't care about them, and that I dismissed them, and he has a level of arrogance that is ignorant to everyone else's experiences except his own.

That's quite a narrative you've concocted. You have a knack for fiction.(when did this become about you)

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

The better option is to address and fix the problems and move past the status quo, it is NOT to sit back and accept things as they are or learn to find peace with an unjust present. 

Absolutely. It would be a good first step to figure out why the victims in sexual assault aren't getting treated in court the same way the victims of a robberies are treated. Do robbery victims get the talk mistermack refers to, informing/dissuading them that this will be a long and brutal process, and that their personal lives will be under the microscope? Are they warned about their limited chances of getting a conviction? Most of the "compromises" he talks about seem weighted to benefit the accused, and then he claims it's the best option available. The more I think about it, it's the exact stance that has enabled us to ignore this injustice all along.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

It's in their own interest to be made fully aware of what they will have to go through

Why do they "have to" go through it? Do victims of other crimes have to be warned about what they will have to go through? Surely that is the problem? Do victims of burglary or other crimes get treated like that?

59 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Yet I never heard anyone bring up about how it was actually her fault, nor that they were in blame. They brought up stuff that you talked about, including being in a certain place she shouldn't have. But that never proceeded into your claims of people dismissing the rapist with "she was asking for it."

As with so many things, it isn't that simple. The very fact that people even mention "being in a place" is part of the problem. They are implicitly saying that it is wrong for women to be in certain places (or wear certain clothes, or drink) even if they don't go so far as to say, explicitly, that she into blame. They are still assigning some level of blame.

 

[StringJunky]

32 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why do they "have to" go through it? Do victims of other crimes have to be warned about what they will have to go through? Surely that is the problem? Do victims of burglary or other crimes get treated like that?

As with so many things, it isn't that simple. The very fact that people even mention "being in a place" is part of the problem. They are implicitly saying that it is wrong for women to be in certain places (or wear certain clothes, or drink) even if they don't go so far as to say, explicitly, that she into blame. They are still assigning some level of blame.

 

i walk through a  Calcutta slum like some blinged-up rapper, am I in the wrong place? is it my fault if I'm divested of everything on me, including possibly my life? "When in Rome..." . We don't live in a perfect world. We need to be pragmatic in any given moment in time and place and be alert to our environment and behave accordingly. Saying "It shouldn't be like this" are the words of naive dreamers.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

i walk through a  Calcutta slum like some blinged-up rapper, am I in the wrong place? is it my fault if I'm divested of everything on me, including possibly my life? "When in Rome..." . We don't live in a perfect world. We need to be pragmatic in any given moment in time and place and be alert to our environment and behave accordingly. Saying "It shouldn't be like this" are the words of naive dreamers.

Except, nearly always the equivalent to "blinged-up rapper" is "woman" (possibly dressed in sweats) and the equivalent of "slum" is at a party, or on a bus or at home. But there is still an attempt to say that the victim has some responsibility (smiling, not fighting back,not screaming loud enough, etc).

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

i walk through a  Calcutta slum like some blinged-up rapper, am I in the wrong place? is it my fault if I'm divested of everything on me, including possibly my life? "When in Rome..." . We don't live in a perfect world. We need to be pragmatic in any given moment in time and place and be alert to our environment and behave accordingly. Saying "It shouldn't be like this" are the words of naive dreamers.

The issue here is that we're talking about normal events. Going to a bar, or a party. Do women not have the right to socialize in this way?

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

The issue here is that we're talking about normal events. Going to a bar, or a party. Do women not have the right to socialize in this way?

The point I was making  was a response to Strange that there are times and places when one puts oneself at risk by the way one is attired. A dressed up person at a bar or party etc is appropriately dressed for that occasion but standing alone at a bus stop or walking home at night in that same attire may make them look out of place and, as a result, vulnerable...like a light to a moth. Rights  and reality are not synonyms

[Phi for All]

54 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

i walk through a  Calcutta slum like some blinged-up rapper, am I in the wrong place? is it my fault if I'm divested of everything on me, including possibly my life? "When in Rome..." . We don't live in a perfect world. We need to be pragmatic in any given moment in time and place and be alert to our environment and behave accordingly. Saying "It shouldn't be like this" are the words of naive dreamers.

This is very similar to the propaganda technique used by Ronald Reagan with the black Welfare Queen campaign. You point to an instance that embodies the worst aspects of your argument, and use that as a supposed baseline for judging behavior. It Begs the Question that the behavior is rampant and always at fault, and in Reagan's case, it unfairly cast several generations of black women in an unfair, stereotypical, and fabricated light.

Why are women in general who've been assaulted treated as though they walked through a Calcutta slum like some blinged-up rapper? It's a fairly automatic response from the current system. You argue that there's a time and place, but in the case of sexual assault, the times and places for women are a tiny fraction of those enjoyed by men in the same venues. Don't you think that needs to be corrected? If you want to change to a better course, you can't steer towards the danger or just leave the wheel where it is. I think we need to start holding men to a higher standard, and not accept that clothing is an excuse to forget those standards.

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

"A high proportion" sounds like "I'm pretty sure this goes on a LOT!" It's also far too subjective for us to take seriously. Also, since the current option is under question in this thread, I would suggest that "There's no better option" is a point that's far from being reached. I would suggest that building confidence in a case is exactly the sort of initiative the courts could improve upon, so there is no hazy line between informing and dissuading. 

what's the alternative? I have several police in my family, and they all say "a high proportion". Maybe there are figures for it.

And of course there will ALWAYS be a hazy line between informing and dissuading. Because in many cases, informing DOES dissuade people from pursuing a case. That's just a fact. When it becomes clear what's involved, a lot of women drop out. The reasons are varied, but it's a fact. So there will never be a black/white situation. So if you are handling the case, you have to compromise between being frank and realistic, and putting off your witness from proceeding. Like I said, there's no alternative to that compromise. So, you end up trying for what you think is the best compromise. And every different person will have their own opinion of where to pitch it.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

The point I was making  was a response to Strange that there are times and places when one puts oneself at risk by the way one is attired. A dressed up person at a bar or party etc is appropriately dressed for that occasion but standing alone at a bus stop or walking home at night in that same attire may make them look out of place and, as a result, vulnerable...like a light to a moth. Rights  and reality are not synonyms

This is what I don't understand. What a woman wears is not related to consent. Is there any evidence that this actually promotes rape, and not just used as an excuse to try and beat the rap?

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Why do they "have to" go through it? Do victims of other crimes have to be warned about what they will have to go through? Surely that is the problem? Do victims of burglary or other crimes get treated like that?

Burglary is different. The question of consent rarely arises. And it's rarely one person's word against another. The courts actually require a higher standard of proof than that, in burglary cases. 

[zapatos]

36 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is very similar to the propaganda technique used by Ronald Reagan with the black Welfare Queen campaign. You point to an instance that embodies the worst aspects of your argument, and use that as a supposed baseline for judging behavior. It Begs the Question that the behavior is rampant and always at fault, and in Reagan's case, it unfairly cast several generations of black women in an unfair, stereotypical, and fabricated light.

Why are women in general who've been assaulted treated as though they walked through a Calcutta slum like some blinged-up rapper? It's a fairly automatic response from the current system. You argue that there's a time and place, but in the case of sexual assault, the times and places for women are a tiny fraction of those enjoyed by men in the same venues. Don't you think that needs to be corrected? If you want to change to a better course, you can't steer towards the danger or just leave the wheel where it is. I think we need to start holding men to a higher standard, and not accept that clothing is an excuse to forget those standards.

I may be mistaken but I believe people are reading into what StringJunky is saying, rather than simply reading the words he used.

I didn't see StringJunky's example as comparing 'women in general who've been assaulted' with 'a blinged-up rapper inc Calcutta'. He also never suggested that women might not have the 'right to go to a bar or a party'.

Instead I saw him using a very obvious example of how people should assess risk in their daily lives.

It becomes difficult to talk about related or subtle differences in emotional topics, because of the knee jerk reaction to support someone who is so obviously wronged. But I have heard women say that they are going to go wherever they want, wear whatever they want, and act however they want, because "god damn it I shouldn't have to modify my behavior for anyone!"

And while they are right that they shouldn't have to modify their behavior, they should at least be aware of the risk associated with their behavior.

If a woman who is dressed provocatively walks unescorted through a prison, much less a party, there is no justification for harming her, and no 'blame' on her when it comes to trying those who did the harm. But the woman needs to assess risk to herself when it comes to sexual assault, just like she assesses risk when it comes to investments or eating spicy food.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

I may be mistaken but I believe people are reading into what StringJunky is saying, rather than simply reading the words he used.

I didn't see StringJunky's example as comparing 'women in general who've been assaulted' with 'a blinged-up rapper inc Calcutta'. He also never suggested that women might not have the 'right to go to a bar or a party'.

There is context given by the post to which he was responding.

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

There is context given by the post to which he was responding.

If I go to a baseball game and get injured by a foul ball, I will be more likely to win a lawsuit than if I am hit by a ball in my backyard that came from some guy hitting balls nearby. The reason of course is that I assumed some risk by choosing to go to a place where foul balls are likely to be hit in the stands.

There is of course no excuse for committing a crime, but I am certainly at risk of people commenting on my behavior if I flash cash in crime ridden neighborhood then get robbed. Therefore I am pragmatic about what behavior I exhibit.

[StringJunky]

34 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If I go to a baseball game and get injured by a foul ball, I will be more likely to win a lawsuit than if I am hit by a ball in my backyard that came from some guy hitting balls nearby. The reason of course is that I assumed some risk by choosing to go to a place where foul balls are likely to be hit in the stands.

There is of course no excuse for committing a crime, but I am certainly at risk of people commenting on my behavior if I flash cash in crime ridden neighborhood then get robbed. Therefore I am pragmatic about what behavior I exhibit.

Yes, your interpretation of my intentions is correct. There  is a serious disconnect about what ideology can be realised today

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Instead I saw him using a very obvious example of how people should assess risk in their daily lives.

And the propaganda technique also uses a "daily lives" backdrop while giving an extreme example, that's why it's insidious. Black women picking up their welfare checks while trying to get pregnant in the backs of their Cadillacs. Blinged-up rappers walking through Calcutta slums. And women wearing slutty outfits at a party, just asking to be raped. 

I think too many men realize the first two are hardly "daily lives" occurrences, but don't extend this reasoning to women.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

If I go to a baseball game and get injured by a foul ball, I will be more likely to win a lawsuit than if I am hit by a ball in my backyard that came from some guy hitting balls nearby. The reason of course is that I assumed some risk by choosing to go to a place where foul balls are likely to be hit in the stands.

There is of course no excuse for committing a crime, but I am certainly at risk of people commenting on my behavior if I flash cash in crime ridden neighborhood then get robbed. Therefore I am pragmatic about what behavior I exhibit.

Where can a woman go to get away from the foul balls being hit at her in places where it isn't appropriate? You only have to assume risk at the stadium. Why does she have to assume the risk at restaurants, movies, parks, sidewalks, etc? Are they always guilty if they look ravishing in public? 

Isn't this more a case of having a foul ball crash through your windshield on the highway, where you weren't expecting it? Wouldn't you hold the stadium responsible for a lack of restraint (some kind of netting, in this case)? If they told you you shouldn't have been driving so close during a game, wouldn't you object to the assumption?

[iNow]

I’d likely be more sympathetic to the Calcutta slum and baseball game arguments were the same things not also happening at the corporate office or restaurant kitchen or stop light intersection or park bench or grocery store or at any of the countless other places we’ve allowed women not to feel safe due merely to having boobs and vaginas and men to get away our actions due merely to... what exactly?

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’d likely be more sympathetic to the Calcutta slum and baseball game arguments were the same things not also happening at the corporate office or restaurant kitchen or stop light intersection or park bench or grocery store or at any of the countless other places we’ve allowed women not to feel safe due merely to having boobs and vaginas and men to get away our actions due merely to... what exactly?

We know there are predators out there who need to have their behavior spotlighted so we can deal with them as the laws allow. I think many other men are guilty of creating a false equivalence between predatory behavior and their own behavior, which triggers a knee-jerk defense. That's one reason why we get so many guys arguing that a peck on the cheek for a co-worker's birthday isn't such a big deal, when we're discussing what some of these powerful men have done to women. 

 

[CharonY]

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’d likely be more sympathetic to the Calcutta slum and baseball game arguments were the same things not also happening at the corporate office or restaurant kitchen or stop light intersection or park bench or grocery store or at any of the countless other places we’ve allowed women not to feel safe due merely to having boobs and vaginas and men to get away our actions due merely to... what exactly?

I am not sure about the relevance at all. If someone flashes money in a dangerous area and gets robbed. Does it mean that police won't prosecute the crime because he had it coming? I mean sure, folks could say that was stupid (though still different from a women visiting a bar) but I do not see it being dismissed outright. After all, sexual assault cases have some of the lowest prosecution rates. I.e. some guy flashing money and getting robbed has still a higher chance to have his/her case followed up then a young woman with the wrong clothes at the right bus stop.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

The reason of course is that I assumed some risk by choosing to go to a place where foul balls are likely to be hit in the stands.

The trouble is, the general belief seems to be that half the population has assumed some risk just by being female.

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I am not sure about the relevance at all. If someone flashes money in a dangerous area and gets robbed. Does it mean that police won't prosecute the crime because he had it coming?

And if he weren't flashing his cash would the defence try and accuse him of doing so and attempt to show that he has a history of showing off his wealth on other occasions?

 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

And while they are right that they shouldn't have to modify their behavior, they should at least be aware of the risk associated with their behavior.

But often their "behaviour" is just being female. How are they supposed to modify that?

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

And if he weren't flashing his cash would the defence try and accuse him of doing so and attempt to show that he has a history of showing off his wealth on other occasions?

 

Good point. I will also add that the baseball example is horribly inadequate. After all there you would sue for negligence not for intention to harm. If someone threw a ball straight at you with intention to harm it would matter little whether it was at a game or in the backyard. Likewise, you would expect law enforcement to act if you are robbed, regardless whether you flashed money or not.