Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

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.

You're presenting this abnormal, prejudicial, gender-specific risk mitigation as de rigueur, or socially required. And I'm saying your attitude is a big part of why the problem never goes away. Men are expected to have potentially uncontrollable urges, and women are held to some Old Testament moral judgement with regard to how they handle the way men express this. This is what I hear you defending.

If I'm being idealistic, then I think you're being hypocritical. I doubt you'd feel the same way about being assaulted if the tables were turned. And if all you have as a retort is something like, "women can grab me all they want", then you've again missed the point badly. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

The training didn't actually work.

So you are saying they trained them to not lose their jobs or get threatened? Otherwise I don't know how you can make the claim that the training did not work. I'd like to see a citation on that please. I've never seen it said or implied anywhere that they were trained not to lose their jobs or get threatened except by you. I certainly never made such a claim.

Quote

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."

So she attended a school for training activists, but because she acted as a private citizen, you feel that means she wasn't meaningfully trained? If she had been acting in an official capacity, would that have suddenly made her training meaningful?

I've seen better arguments made by religious fundamentalists. As is your M.O. you seem to just be looking to pick a fight rather than engage in any meaningful discussion. 

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

 Men are expected to have potentially uncontrollable urges, and women are held to some Old Testament moral judgement with regard to how they handle the way men express this. This is what I hear you defending.

You should get your hearing checked. Seriously, you are way off the mark here. No one here has said anything even remotely close to that.

 

Quote

 I doubt you'd feel the same way about being assaulted if the tables were turned. And if all you have as a retort is something like, "women can grab me all they want", then you've again missed the point badly. 

Perhaps you should criticize MigL for statements he actually makes, instead of those you anticipate he might make.

[iNow]

Time to breathe, people. We want the same thing. We’re all friends. 

On the training point, I’m unconvinced if it’s relevance. We could just as easily say Rosa Parks took an unnecessary risk on that bus, or that an unnecessary risk was taken by sitting at those lunch counters, but we don’t. We applaud them for standing up to a system that has Long put them in harms way. 

Why aren’t we doing the same for women? Why not limit this odd distracting focus on those rare marginal situations where a dumb risk was taken and focus instead on the overwhelming majority of cases where women are being harassed and assaulted despite having made the safest choices?

Why not afford women the same respect and latitude that you do civil rights activists? Is it because they haven’t attended formal training? Surely not, but that’s how this line of discussion comes across. 

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

We applaud them for standing up to a system that has Long put them in harms way. 

Why aren’t we doing the same for women? Why not limit this odd distracting focus on those rare marginal situations where a dumb risk was taken and focus instead on the overwhelming majority of cases where women are being harassed and assaulted despite having made the safest choices?

 

We are applauding them for standing up to a system that has long put them in harm's way. Look at the #metoo movement. Look at the support they are receiving in this thread. People are stepping all over themselves, from politicians to celebrities to people like us, praising and supporting these women who are risking themselves and their livelihoods to take on the trolls who feel they can abuse women and get away with it.

I'm a bit disappointed that on a site like this we are unable to look at any other aspect of sexual harassment without it being suggested we are somehow part of the problem rather than the solution.

Quote

Why not afford women the same respect and latitude that you do civil rights activists? Is it because they haven’t attended formal training? Surely not, but that’s how this line of discussion comes across. 

As I am seen as not affording women the same respect and latitude that I do to civil rights activists, I can only conclude that I have failed completely in my ability to communicate effectively.

[iNow]

I think we’re far closer on this than it appears. I don’t feel I’ve misunderstood you and others. 

I guess I’m mostly wondering how talking about that tiny marginal few who take silly risks is anything but a tangential distraction from the bigger issues under discussion.

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

I think we’re far closer on this than it appears. I don’t feel I’ve misunderstood you and others. 

I guess I’m mostly wondering how talking about that tiny marginal few who take silly risks is anything but a tangential distraction from the bigger issues under discussion.

I've been wondering something similar. How could a suggestion that people limit their exposure to risky situations generate so much controversy? I feel like had someone responded with "well, yeah, of course you should limit your exposure to risky situations", then that portion of this discussion would have been over.

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I've been wondering something similar. How could a suggestion that people limit their exposure to risky situations generate so much controversy? I feel like had someone responded with "well, yeah, of course you should limit your exposure to risky situations", then that portion of this discussion would have been over.

Because it was a non-sequitur when it was introduced. It smacks of apologetics in that context.

[iNow]

38 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I feel like had someone responded with "well, yeah, of course you should limit your exposure to risky situations", then that portion of this discussion would have been over.

Well, yeah. Of course you should limit your exposure to risky situations. 

As I replied already a few weeks sgo, though:

On 12/21/2017 at 3:31 PM, 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?

 

[zapatos]

40 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because it was a non-sequitur when it was introduced. It smacks of apologetics in that context.

To me it smacks of allowing emotion to override open discussion. I have seen dozens if not hundreds of conversations on this site where what was perceived as a totally ludicrous assertion was debated openly and in earnest. Rather than saying "we shouldn't discuss that", people would instead explain with vigor why the assertion was wrong.

The very first thread I opened on this site was on the topic of whether or not atheists fought fair. The reason I opened the thread was because it appeared to me that the rules of debate and evidence followed by many on this site when debating a scientific topic, were dramatically modified once we started discussing topics that included more emotion.

My opinion on how people behave with respect to debate on this site has not changed significantly.

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

it appeared to me that the rules of debate and evidence followed by many on this site when debating a scientific topic, were dramatically modified once we started discussing topics that included more emotion.

Is that what I and others are doing here?

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I've been wondering something similar. How could a suggestion that people limit their exposure to risky situations generate so much controversy? I feel like had someone responded with "well, yeah, of course you should limit your exposure to risky situations", then that portion of this discussion would have been over.

First, I feel this is a non-response to sexual assault on women, first making sure they weren't doing anything "risky" that might somehow mitigate the perpetrator's responsibility.  Also, since this is such a basic point, it's insulting to keep using it as an argument with isolated and vivid examples used to admonish the majority. It perpetuates the prejudice and maligns the intelligence of women. 

 

 

[zapatos]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Is that what I and others are doing here?

Despite being framed as a non-sequitur and an attempt to blame the victim, yes. That’s exactly what’s happening.

You've been much more reasonable, at least explaining why you don't think it should be discussed in this thread and asking for arguments. But the stream of logical fallacies used to discredit any attempt at taking the contrary position by myself and others is ridiculous.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

First, I feel this is a non-response to sexual assault on women, first making sure they weren't doing anything "risky" that might somehow mitigate the perpetrator's responsibility.  

How many times are you going to misrepresent how I and others feel about the perpetrator's responsibility? If you keep ignoring certain parts of what is being said we are never going to have a meaningful dialogue.

[MigL]

Very well, Phi.
Lets forget this emotionally charged subject, for a minute and consider another of society's problems, that happens to be genderless.

I think we can all agree that people who mug, rob and do harm to others are responsible  for their actions and their victims have no blame.
Would you take a stroll through Central park at night ?
Or stroll down Mulberry St in Baltimore ?
Or parts of Detroit or Washington DC ?

Or would you take precautions ?

And does the fact that I would urge you to take precautions, mean that I'm defending muggers, robbers and gang-bangers ?
Or that I don't wish those problems didn't exist ?

And sadly no, I'm in my late fifties; women don't 'grab' me anymore.
( damn, old age sucks ! )

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

Would you take a stroll through Central park at night ?
Or stroll down Mulberry St in Baltimore ?
Or parts of Detroit or Washington DC ?

This seems to ignore how these risks are faced and offronts occurring in essentially every circumstance and every location, not just those that are obviously unsafe. Suggesting it’s only unlit Central Park and DC, Detroit, or Mulberry wherever distracts from the actual problem. 

[MigL]

That wasn't the intent and you know it.

If I urged you not to go for a stroll through Central Park ( or any 'unsafe' place ) at night, would Phi accuse me of defending muggers and robbers ?
Because that is exactly what he's doing WRT this OP.

 

[iNow]

So, explain to me again how focusing on these marginal uncommon scenarios helps us to address and resolve the broader issue(s) being discussed. 

TBH, I’m just not seeing it, but you and zap and these fellas I really enjoy and deeply respect seem to see it is a massive area of required focus in this thread, so please help me understand why it matters so much and illuminate for me what I’m missing. 

[MigL]

You're right, it doesn't solve anything...

But maybe me and Zap are tired of being labelled defenders of rapists and women's assailants ( by certain members ), for advocating a course of action which may mitigate some rapes and assaults on women. A course of action which everyone readily uses in their daily life to reduce certain other ( non gender related ) risks caused by other people.
That was the point of the example.

Are we going to solve the broader issue being discussed anytime soon ?
Of course not.
Until then, I will advise women I care about to minimize their risks.
( just like I would advise Phi NOT to go strolling through Central Park at night )

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Are we going to solve the broader issue being discussed anytime soon ?
Of course not.

Why not?

[zapatos]

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, explain to me again how focusing on these marginal uncommon scenarios helps us to address and resolve the broader issue(s) being discussed. 

TBH, I’m just not seeing it, but you and zap and these fellas I really enjoy and deeply respect seem to see it is a massive area of required focus in this thread, so please help me understand why it matters so much and illuminate for me what I’m missing. 

Why can we not discuss it if it doesn't address the broader issue? Why can't the nuances be discussed? For the life of me I cannot understand why some aspects of this issue are verboten. It is not as if sexual assault will continue until we reach consensus in this thread. There should be NOTHING that cannot be discussed. 

As far as the 'massive area of required focus', almost all of our discussion centers not around how women address risk, but around whether or not we are allowed to discuss how women address risk and what that says about us.

And at the risk of opening another bone of contention, I don't really agree that these scenarios are all that uncommon'. As the father of two twenty-something boys I've had a lot of exposure to the behavior of young ladies. The risks they take with their behavior are mind boggling and quite common. The stories of passing out in frat houses, unprotected sex with strangers, and taking their clothes off at parties makes my skin crawl.

[iNow]

Nobody here, myself included, said you couldn’t discuss risk minimization. Now, would you like to answer the actual question I posed? Do you feel this will all go away if women simply do a better job of avoiding dark allies and miniskirts? I don’t think that’s either a viable solution nor a fair representation of your position, but what is then?

[MigL]

I beg to differ.

The subject of risk minimization brought a response that such an attitude is hypocritical, and a big part of the reason why the problem never goes away ( see the top of this page ).

And an up-vote. So at least two people agree with that assessment.

Edited January 8, 2018 by MigL

[John Cuthber]

14 hours 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.

That misses the point.

There will still be just as many bad people if all the women dress like nuns or dress like whores.

All your approach does is choose a different victim, and it's naive to think otherwise

[swansont]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

To me it smacks of allowing emotion to override open discussion. I have seen dozens if not hundreds of conversations on this site where what was perceived as a totally ludicrous assertion was debated openly and in earnest. Rather than saying "we shouldn't discuss that", people would instead explain with vigor why the assertion was wrong.

Who said we shouldn't discuss that?

And I explained the problem with the assertion. Not that it was wrong, but that it in the context of the existing discussion it had certain connotations.

 

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

Despite being framed as a non-sequitur and an attempt to blame the victim, yes. That’s exactly what’s happening.

I have yet to see the "risky behavior" scenario established as the rule rather than the exception when it comes to sexual assault, especially in light of the recent news stories which have prompted the discussion. Until you establish the predominance of "risky behavior" as something that should be considered risk (short skirts is risk?), and a causal factor (rather than excuse) in these cases, it is a non-sequitur.

 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

This seems to ignore how these risks are faced and offronts occurring in essentially every circumstance and every location, not just those that are obviously unsafe. Suggesting it’s only unlit Central Park and DC, Detroit, or Mulberry wherever distracts from the actual problem. 

Yes, this. 

Establish that the majority of sexual assault happens in truly analogous conditions to walking in Central Park at night.

6 hours ago, MigL said:

 Are we going to solve the broader issue being discussed anytime soon ?

I don't think anyone involved thinks we're going to actually solve anything. But we aren't even discussing the broader issue if we are focusing on a specific class of scenarios, that weren't part of the original discussion. 

[John Cuthber]

12 hours ago, zapatos said:

So she attended a school for training activists, but because she acted as a private citizen, you feel that means she wasn't meaningfully trained? If she had been acting in an official capacity, would that have suddenly made her training meaningful?

I've seen better arguments made by religious fundamentalists. As is your M.O. you seem to just be looking to pick a fight rather than engage in any meaningful discussion. 

There is no evidence that she received any meaningful or effective training.

The "training" didn't actually help as shown by the fact that she still lost her job etc.

She actually acted, not as part of some trained team, but as a disgruntled individual.

Since the training (whatever form it took) seems to have achieved nothing, it isn't relevant.

 

[mistermack]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

I think we’re far closer on this than it appears. I don’t feel I’ve misunderstood you and others. 

I guess I’m mostly wondering how talking about that tiny marginal few who take silly risks is anything but a tangential distraction from the bigger issues under discussion.

I think it's a question of how you can actually make a difference. If you imagine you can somehow change human nature, or behaviour, it needs more than slogans and campaigns. We've got all that already. If I had teenage daughters, the only thing that I could do to actually make them safer, is to make them risk aware.  I know full well that there will ALWAYS be some predatory men out there, no matter how much society castigates them.

One thing I would personally advocate is to lock offenders away for a much longer time. There is a serial rapist taxi driver in the UK, who was drugging and raping women in London in huge numbers. The police estimate over a hundred, but he was convicted of nineteen offences. 

He was given an indeterminate sentence, with just eight years as a minumum. He pleaded not guilty to all 19 offences that he was charged with, never admitted to any more, and yet he's being paroled having served the minimum. If you want to make a difference, campaign for stiffer sentences, and far less lenient parole conditions. Here is the most prolific drugger and rapist in modern times just serving eight years. It's a joke. There are a lot of prospective rapists out there who will conclude that it's worth taking the risk.