Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

[MigL]

So John, just to be clear...

If one of your children decides to cross the street without looking both ways, and almost gets hit by a bus, who do you blame ?

The victim, your child, for failing to do his/her due diligence ?
Or the bus driver, for not having enough control of his vehicle to avoid the incident ?

I'm not taking sides in this discussion, I think Gees has made some excellent points, as have you guys.
I'm just sitting on the fence, and asking for a clarification of your ( respected ) opinion.
 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I do blame victims, and I think it's right to blame victims, when they take silly risks. If you dash across a zebra crossing without looking, you take a silly risk, even though you have the right of way. It doesn't absolve the driver who hits you, they should be ready to stop. But when you take an obvious risk, even though you have a right to do so, I think you are partly to blame. 

Like I said, a lot of law hinges on what's reasonable. It's not always black and white. 

A person is innocent till proven guilty. But if I knew that someone had just been acquitted on charges of paedophilia, and I allowed him to babysit my kids, and they got abused, I would blame myself, as well as the paedophile. Because the risk should have been obvious, and I ignored it. 

And we're back to imagining things about the victims. First it's their lack of morality, and now their lack of intelligence. These are often the first, and sometimes only, responses to accusations of sexual assault. The evidence is all around us that men don't have to be goaded into taking unfair advantage of women. You don't have to imagine that the woman did something to him to make him turn animal. This is about shining the light on these animals, and I really hate that this attitude helps them hide in the dark.

[MigL]

This isn't about assigning blame, Phi.
from past discussions we've had you know that I think people should be more responsible for their own actions. So the blame rests fully with the perpetrator of the actions, and in no way with the victim. But there is another aspect to consider.
Sometimes it's about prevention.

I remember you once shared that you have a daughter.
If she was going 'clubbing' dressed 'provocatively' ( I realise that's the wrong word to use ), would you not, as a parent, offer advice ( knowing what kind of men are out there ) that maybe she should not dress so risque' ?
As a parent are you not morally obligated to advise your daughter about the dangers of the world ?
Just as you taught her to look both ways before crossing the street ?

The world should not be the way it is, but being aware of its imperfections is always better than being naïve to those imperfections.

Edited January 6, 2018 by MigL

[iNow]

The fault rests with the predator. The seal shouldn’t be blamed for looking delicious to the shark. End program

Edited January 7, 2018 by iNow

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The fault rests with the predator. 

I have yet to see anyone suggest differently. Yet whenever there is a suggestion that the overall situation is more nuanced than simply predator/prey, there seems to be a tendency to ignore the practical in favor of the ideal. A woman who ignores risk because it's "not fair" is not the same as a seal who has no choice but to swim in the same waters as sharks.

[zapatos]

A few days ago in New Zealand a woman walking around topless at a music festival was groped by a man. The woman then attacked the man in response.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/670909/New-Years-Eve-topless-woman-groped-attack-man-New-Zealand-Rhythm-Vine-festival-video

I don't think anyone disagrees that the man was wrong to grab the woman, but I have a difficult time working up much sympathy for her. I find it hard to believe that she didn't realize walking around topless amongst a bunch of drinking young men was risky behavior. This is obviously an extreme example, but at the very least she should not have been terribly surprised that this was more likely to happen to her than to her friend.

[John Cuthber]

17 hours ago, mistermack said:

I do blame victims, and I think it's right to blame victims, when they take silly risks. If you dash across a zebra crossing without looking, you take a silly risk, even though you have the right of way. It doesn't absolve the driver who hits you, they should be ready to stop. But when you take an obvious risk, even though you have a right to do so, I think you are partly to blame. 

Like I said, a lot of law hinges on what's reasonable. It's not always black and white. 

A person is innocent till proven guilty. But if I knew that someone had just been acquitted on charges of paedophilia, and I allowed him to babysit my kids, and they got abused, I would blame myself, as well as the paedophile. Because the risk should have been obvious, and I ignored it. 

The only person responsible for rape is the rapist.

A woman who falls victim to an attack will usually have been seen by many other men before the assault took place.
The if the way she was dressed was the "reason" for that attack, how come the other men didn't assault her when she was dressed that way?

How do you rule out the idea that it's because the other men  weren't shits?

17 hours ago, MigL said:

So John, just to be clear...

If one of your children decides to cross the street without looking both ways, and almost gets hit by a bus, who do you blame ?

The victim, your child, for failing to do his/her due diligence ?
Or the bus driver, for not having enough control of his vehicle to avoid the incident ?

I'm not taking sides in this discussion, I think Gees has made some excellent points, as have you guys.
I'm just sitting on the fence, and asking for a clarification of your ( respected ) opinion.
 

I'm not sure it's relevant, and I will come to that later.

Legally, the driver is at fault. He's the one who decided to set tons of metal moving. Legally, if he couldn't stop in time, he was driving too fast. (even the courts don't normally enforce the law in this way)
It's still a complex issue; how old is the child?
A toddler who doesn't understand that busses are dangerous can't  be responsible. In that case, the responsibility lies with whoever should have been looking after the child.

If the child is old enough that they should know that a bus can't stop immediately then it's the child's fault. But, again, it could be the fault of those who should have explained  the dangers of the road.

 

The reason I think it's irrelevant is that the driver did not deliberately decide to run the child down whereas a rapist does deliberately decide to attack someone.

If someone set out to murder a child by crashing a bus into them then it's totally bloody obvious whose fault it is that the child dies. Anything else would be blaming the victim.

12 hours ago, MigL said:

remember you once shared that you have a daughter.
If she was going 'clubbing' dressed 'provocatively' ( I realise that's the wrong word to use ), would you not, as a parent, offer advice ( knowing what kind of men are out there ) that maybe she should not dress so risque' ?

We should stop focusing on telling our daughters to "be careful" and  start telling our sons to ******* well behave properly.

[mistermack]

People can argue all they like about how the only person responsible is the rapist. I think that's a typical strawman argument, against an argument that is clearly not being made. People get all upset, if you criticise a victim for taking silly risks, and twist the argument, to pretend that you are excusing the perpetrator. 

You can do both, you can condemn the perpetrator, and also criticise the risky behaviour of a victim. To keep pretending that you cant criticise the victim, without defending the perpetrator, is definitely straw man tactics. It's attacking an argument that's not being made.

I watched on tv yesterday, a program about a serial rapist. More than one of his victims blamed themselves for taking a risk, which ended up leading to a life-changing attack. They were in no way defending the rapist. One got into his car because he came across as so nice and normal. Her words were that she was embarrassed that she of all people would get into a stranger's car, something she never believed she would ever do. The other actually got a lift home, but then let him in for a drink of water.

You can bang on all you like about how it's his fault, not hers. ( as the cop actually did ). But she wasn't impressed, and said that if she had taken her own advice, it would never have happened. I prefer the opinion of someone like that, who's been there, done it, and regretted it. That's the real world speaking. 

[iNow]

12 hours ago, zapatos said:

whenever there is a suggestion that the overall situation is more nuanced than simply predator/prey, there seems to be a tendency to ignore the practical in favor of the ideal. A woman who ignores risk because it's "not fair" is not the same as a seal who has no choice but to swim in the same waters as sharks.

I suggest doing anything else just unnecessarily prolongs the existence of an inequitable system. 

We discussed earlier in the thread this idea if risk minimization. The problem is simply existing is a risk for females. They walk down the street and a male approaches. Risk. They walk to their car and it’s not well lit. Risk. They go to work wearing perfectly acceptable business attire and the boss is a creep. Risk. 

If we’re being honest with each other here, it really is the same as a seal having no choice but to swim in the same waters as sharks and I’m mostly saying it’s time to focus our energies on removing/reducing those risks (or sharks or whatever) instead of continually commenting about the womens role or the role of the seal. Doing so just delays our ability to improve the system as a whole. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I suggest doing anything else just unnecessarily prolongs the existence of an inequitable system. 

 

Does this apply to anything other than sex crimes? For example, should we not practice risk mitigation when it comes to financial crimes such as credit card or identity theft, simply because it unnecessarily prolongs the existence of an inequitable system?

1 hour ago, iNow said:

We discussed earlier in the thread this idea if risk minimization. The problem is simply existing is a risk for females. They walk down the street and a male approaches. Risk. They walk to their car and it’s not well lit. Risk. They go to work wearing perfectly acceptable business attire and the boss is a creep. Risk. 

 

But all risk is not the same. Ask any woman; they practice risk mitigation all the time. Do they park their car in an attended lot or on a backstreet? I don't see many women deciding to take on additional risk for the ideal of hurrying along the demise of an inequitable system.

There will never be a time when there is no risk to women based on their gender. It's an imperfect world.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

If we’re being honest with each other here, it really is the same as a seal having no choice but to swim in the same waters as sharks and I’m mostly saying it’s time to focus our energies on removing/reducing those risks (or sharks or whatever) instead of continually commenting about the womens role or the role of the seal. Doing so just delays our ability to improve the system as a whole. 

Sorry but I don't think I can get on board with this sentiment. Ignoring the reality of an imperfect world will result in a lot of unnecessary suffering as we work to improve the system. We need to focus on both simultaneously.

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It's an imperfect world.

 

Who knew an imprerfect world  lead  to an imperfect world?

[iNow]

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Ask any woman; they practice risk mitigation all the time.

Which is a large part of the reason continued focus on that side of the equation is time and energy wasted.

I’m not saying people should take unnecessary risk or that the world will ever be perfect. I am saying that if we’re to continue improving the world and ameliorating this situation then we need to stay focused on the right things and stop so casually commenting on whether her parking spot was improperly chosen, her dress too sexy, or lipstick too red, etc.

[zapatos]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

I am saying that if we’re to continue improving the world and ameliorating this situation then we need to stay focused on the right things and stop so casually commenting on whether her parking spot was improperly chosen, her dress too sexy, or lipstick too red, etc.

Is that what I and others are doing here?

[John Cuthber]

46 minutes ago, zapatos said:

There will never be a time when there is no risk to women based on their gender.

Why not?

However,  there certainly won't be if men are given the tacit excuse that "it's her fault for  ....".
Maybe if we stop pretending that men are not in control of their own dicks, there will come a time when women aren't at risk.

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Is that what I and others are doing here?

Despite being framed as pragmatism and risk mitigation and us not living in a perfect world, yes. That’s exactly what’s happening.

I repeat. We must stay focused on the correct side of this equation if we’re to make the situation better. Commenting on how women can / should / must always do more than they’re already doing to minimize risk only distracts and delays us from achieving those improvements.

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Why not?

However,  there certainly won't be if men are given the tacit excuse that "it's her fault for  ....".
Maybe if we stop pretending that men are not in control of their own dicks, there will come a time when women aren't at risk.

Because there are bad people in the world who are in charge of their own dicks and choose to use them for evil. It is naive to think otherwise.

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Despite being framed as pragmatism and risk mitigation and us not living in a perfect world, yes. That’s exactly what’s happening.

I repeat. We must stay focused on the correct side of this equation if we’re to make the situation better. Commenting on how women can / should / must always do more than they’re already doing to minimize risk only distracts and delays us from achieving those improvements.

Well, you focus on the future, and I'll split my focus between the future and today. We both have the same goal, we just disagree on what actions should be taken until we arrive.

[Phi for All]

18 hours ago, MigL said:

The world should not be the way it is, but being aware of its imperfections is always better than being naïve to those imperfections.

Your antiquated argument, the same one my father used when he would clean his shotgun in front of my sister's dates while waiting for them to come downstairs, is that men can't help themselves and must be threatened before they'll stop being animals, because that's just the way the world is. You and others would defend vigilance, but I and others are trying to point out that it's not a sustainable stance, never has been, and it needs to change. Under your argument, women will have to remain abnormally vigilant forever.

As a man, I think we need to stop allowing other men off the behavior hook when it comes to assaulting women. Do we let anyone off the hook for driving while intoxicated? Working while intoxicated? Why allow drinking to be an excuse for any abuse, from any gender? We shouldn't let men off the hook for assault while intoxicated. We should NEVER think in terms of "should have expected to be assaulted". How is THAT beneficial to a society?

I sincerely hope my fellow men can move beyond this defense of how things are, and demand that we treat women and ALL their body parts with the same respect we demand for ourselves. Imagine what life would be like if you had to be vigilant against people reaching out squeezing your nose (or anything else, really), and then defending themselves with all the excuses we hear. 

Honestly, the whole thing is beginning to smell like defending the arms industry. "We all know about the horrible worldwide atrocities, but wow that's a LOT of money and we get to vent our aggression, so don't take my guns away!" "Sex trafficking, wage gaps, open discrimination, morality arguments, all these make even MORE MONEY and let us vent even MORE AGGRESSION, so women should just be more careful!"

[John Cuthber]

44 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Because there are bad people in the world who are in charge of their own dicks and choose to use them for evil. It is naive to think otherwise.

And while we keep saying that the woman shouldn't have worn a short skirt, we make life easier for the bad people.

Is that what you want?

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

And while we keep saying that the woman shouldn't have worn a short skirt, we make life easier for the bad people.

Is that what you want?

Yes, I want us to keep saying that the woman shouldn't have worn the short skirt, and to make life easier for the bad people. You hit the nail on the head.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

We both have the same goal, we just disagree on what actions should be taken until we arrive.

I agree, and I'm appreciative that we're partners in this. FWIW, I'd also be pushing back on you if in context of equal rights and arguments about fair protections you were commenting on how Rosa Parks shouldn't be sitting at the front of the bus that or MLK shouldn't to sit at the lunch counter in segregated restaurants or use a whites only water fountain or that black men shouldn't smile at a white woman... because, despite what I know to be your positive intentions and also recognizing that we're total allies in this... that's what it feels like is happening.

[MigL]

Wow, you went off on a tangent, Phi.
( did your dad really clean his shotgun in front of your sister's dates; I thought that only happened in the movies )

Maybe you're being idealistic, or maybe naïve, and striving for a better world is certainly commendable, but until then, risk mitigation is a must.
And as Zapatos has repeatedly pointed out, it isn't just women's problems. There are lots of cases where the world is 'ugly' for ALL people. Should we all wait until the world is ideal for everyone and take no precautions to minimize risks ?

And simple education, or mind-set is not the answer. It's not that some men cannot control themselves; the problem is they don't want to.
Yes, there are evil people and dangers in this world.

Worked out well for Rosa Parks, iNow, but maybe MLK should have taken some precautions, as it regretfully cost him his life ( eventually ).

Edited January 7, 2018 by MigL

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

I agree, and I'm appreciative that we're partners in this. FWIW, I'd also be pushing back on you if in context of equal rights and arguments about fair protections you were commenting on how Rosa Parks shouldn't be sitting at the front of the bus that or MLK shouldn't to sit at the lunch counter in segregated restaurants or use a whites only water fountain or that black men shouldn't smile at a white woman... because, despite what I know to be your positive intentions and also recognizing that we're total allies in this... that's what it feels like is happening.

I'm glad you used the examples of Rosa Parks and the lunch counter incidents. First I have to say that there is little that generates more respect in me than for someone who puts themselves at risk for what they know to be 'the right thing'. I am in awe of such people.

In the cases of Rosa Parks and those at the lunch counters, those were not people who threw safety to the wind because they were just tired or hungry. They were all trained activists performing calculated, risky activities meant to further their goal. They are akin to soldiers going into battle, entering a risky situation but taking what steps can be taken to minimize risk.

I would never be critical of the actions taken by Rosa Parks and those sitting at the lunch counters and wish I could have been there to support them. But at the same time I would be critical of a black man in the South in the '50s who flirted with a white woman in public. There is no reason to take that risk, simply based on the ideal that no harm should come to him.

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

In the cases of Rosa Parks and those at the lunch counters, those were not people who threw safety to the wind because they were just tired or hungry. They were all trained activists performing calculated, risky activities meant to further their goal.

Would you like to tell us what particular training you think Rosa Parks had received?

Also, can you explain what that training did in terms of, for example, stopping them losing their jobs or receiving death threats (as Rosa Parks did).

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I would be critical of a black man in the South in the '50s who flirted with a white woman in public. There is no reason to take that risk...

Ever heard of love?

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Would you like to tell us what particular training you think Rosa Parks had received?

Quote

At the time, Parks was secretary of the Montgomery chapter of the NAACP. She had recently attended the Highlander Folk School, a Tennesseecenter for training activists for workers' rights and racial equality. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

Quote

Also, can you explain what that training did in terms of, for example, stopping them losing their jobs or receiving death threats (as Rosa Parks did).

I'm not sure what you are asking. As you say, she did receive death threats and lose her job. Why do you think the training helped her NOT get death threats or lose her job?!?!

Quote

Ever heard of love?

LOL!

[John Cuthber]

You seem to have missed my point.

The training didn't actually work.

As that wiki page says "She acted as a private citizen "tired of giving in""

So she wasn't in a meaningful sense "trained" which rather undermines your claim that "They were all trained activists performing calculated, risky activities meant to further their goal."