Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Sorry I'm not the man you thought I was. I didn't realize the onus was on me to have the answers and to have presented them by this stage of the discussion.

You suggested they should "avoid the situation". You seemed to be saying they should dress modestly as well, but you seem to have withdrawn that one.

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

f that were true, then nearly every woman at the festival would have been assaulted. You might want to rethink that assertion.

I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it were the vast majority. I would like to think not, but everything I have read leads me not to be optimistic about it.

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I give up. We are in the Newtonian world now where commonsense exists. I can't be doing with mental gymnastics like this.

As swansont says, you don't know how many others were groped (or worse) and how they were dressed. You don't know if someone else went naked and had nothing happen to them. This is called critical thinking, not mental gymnastics.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Strange

[StringJunky]

48 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you walked through a pop festival, stark bollock naked would you expect to be groped?

There is a risk, yes. Or I should say was, now that I'm rather wizened, I don't think so. I walked through the crowds at the first Donington Rock festival and got snogged by some passing woman who proceeded to carry on walking as though nothing had happened. That was with clothes on. Walking through a crowded pub or nightclub there's a risk of getting groped, especially at festive times. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

There is a risk, yes. Or I should say was, now that I'm rather wizened, I don't think so. I walked through the crowds at the first Donington Rock festival and got snogged by some passing woman who proceeded to carry on walking as though nothing had happened. That was with clothes on. Walking through a crowded pub or nightclub there's a risk of getting groped, especially at festive times. 

Who knew? For risk read chance, I'm game...

[John Cuthber]

32 minutes ago, zapatos said:

By failing to read what I've written or engage in honest dialogue you are wasting my time.

Do you accept  that, while people are saying " women should be careful" these inadequate men will read it as "it's the woman's fault for not being careful"?
You don't need to say it in so few words. As long as you are considering how "she" was dressed, "he" will take it that her  attire was the "cause".

And it therefore doesn't matter what your intent is, or how carefully you word stuff, what they will hear is "she shouldn't have dressed like a slut".

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I walked through the crowds at the first Donington Rock festival and got snogged by some passing woman who proceeded to carry on walking as though nothing had happened.

And this amazing story got to turn out well for all involved because you didn't assume that a snog at a rock festival gave you some kind of male-based permission to do more. Many men would have, and it's their behavior that's in the spotlight right now, not yours. That's why there's so much pushback against the simple argument that women ought to be more careful. We aren't talking about any kind of behavior you'd condone from men if you witnessed it firsthand.

[zapatos]

43 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Overfocusing on the victim's behavior helps the perpetrators of sexual assault, as I'm sure you'll agree.

I do.

Quote

And it seems like that's exactly what you're doing, overfocusing, bringing it up whenever it's suggested that men should instead be the focus.

I recognize that is how people are perceiving this and I've been trying to change that perception all along. It feels to me like people have preconceived notions about what will work and what is worthwhile delving into (and those notions do NOT include actions women can/should take). I feel like half my time has been spent trying to discuss how to avoid being a victim, and the other half defending myself or why I think it is okay to discuss this.

Also keep in mind that I am not bringing up this line of thought among a bunch of misogynists (well, maybe I am, what do I know) but on a site that prides itself on taking an unbiased, honest look at difficult subjects. It feels to me like the assumption is not that I want to explore this topic because of honest reasons, but because of my underlying misogyny.

Quote

Is it that far out of bounds to suggest your approach lends a tacit support to the men involved?

Only as much as my thoughts on how to avoid being a victim of financial crimes lends tacit support to financial criminals. I don't see a big difference.

Quote

You think it's a dishonest approach, and I don't understand why. Please help. 

Because I have not once suggested women not wear short skirts, I never claimed the victims were at fault (and in fact stated just the opposite on more than one occasion), I am criticized for not allowing my (fictitious) daughter to be a victim so that someone else doesn't have to be, I've been told I don't think women should be allowed to be themselves, among other things. Yet if you go back and read my posts I think what you'll find is that all I've really done is suggest there is more than one way to keep women (and men) from getting hurt and it would behoove us to explore those options.

46 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Do you accept  that, while people are saying " women should be careful" these inadequate men will read it as "it's the woman's fault for not being careful"?
You don't need to say it in so few words. As long as you are considering how "she" was dressed, "he" will take it that her  attire was the "cause"

That sounds probable. Although I doubt they needed to hear me say 'women should be careful' to assign blame to the women.

On the other hand, I choose not to let the dregs of this world determine what I can and cannot discuss. I will no more avoid discussing solutions for potential victims of sexual crimes than I will avoid discussing solutions for potential victims of financial crimes.

I'm curious as to what other crimes we avoid talking about with respect to steps people can take to avoid being victims for fear of how the criminals will interpret those conversations.

[MigL]

Ok, we've established that there is a problem with unwanted sexual advances/assaults on women.
Now let's try to come up with some workable solutions.

Zapatos has suggested risk mitigation as one small part of addressing the problem ( and I happen to agree with him ). Risk mitigation by itself, of course won't solve the problem, how could it ? It may include being aware of your surroundings, avoiding certain situations or being appropriately dressed for those situations, knowing your rights and avenue for complaints, letting others know where you are, etc.
( sounds exactly like the risk mitigation I do when going on vacation )

The rest of you guys have suggested this increases the problem, and that men's attitudes should change/ the world should be safe for all.
As to mechanisms for bringing this change about all we've gotten is that women should continue to be assaulted ( without taking precautions )as that will bring about this change.
Not one person has made concrete suggestions, like changing laws ( as if that would help in other countries ), changing the education system to empower women, or alternatively, educate men on women's issues ( but alas, there will still be people intent on doing bad things to others ).

So who is taking the more realistic approach here ?

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

You suggested they should "avoid the situation". You seemed to be saying they should dress modestly as well, but you seem to have withdrawn that one.

I didn't withdraw from that one because I never said it or implied it. I'm sorry you misunderstood what I was saying.

 

[Phi for All]

37 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yet if you go back and read my posts I think what you'll find is that all I've really done is suggest there is more than one way to keep women (and men) from getting hurt and it would behoove us to explore those options.

And there's no pushback against this, either. Again, it seems like a pretty obvious given that people, ALL people, should avoid being victims wherever they can. And it's a given that actual assault should be dealt with by the letter and spirit of the law. I hope everyone agrees with this, please sing out if you don't. Exploring more options for women to be unobtrusive and unremarkable seems like repeating bad history.

When we observe what actually goes on, we see that women are not given the same treatment with regards to sexual assault. In today's society, this means women, for reasons your arguments seem to support, have to take this to the extreme when it comes to dress and behavior, far more so than men. Is there a reason why we should condone it, given that assault is bad and common sense vigilance is good? When women come forth to fight against this prejudice and inequality, shouldn't we do more than remind them that some men can't be trusted to observe what the rest of us take as given? 

Does vigilance end in prevention, or should we be putting similar efforts into punishment and rehabilitation? Part of the justice system is making the consequences of repeated crimes something to avoid at all costs. 

I think we've explored the what-else-should-women-do options long enough. I'd like to explore the put-the-sexual-predators-in-jail-with-each-other options, and the let's-teach-our-sons-some-respect-for-women options, and the shatter-stupid-stereotypes options.

[John Cuthber]

What has been proposed, and labelled, as "risk mitigation" is actually  "risk transfer" from "my daughter" to "someone else's daughter." It just means the attacker will pick someone else. Perhaps it's because I don't have kids that I can see that as not solving anything.

40 minutes ago, zapatos said:

On the other hand, I choose not to let the dregs of this world determine what I can and cannot discuss.

How did you get the idea that anyone was determining what you could discuss?
In particular, you are discussing things on this site where only the Mods  make that determination.

Are  you calling them the dregs of society?

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

Not one person has made concrete suggestions, like changing laws ( as if that would help in other countries ), changing the education system to empower women, or alternatively, educate men on women's issues

Cough

 

On 1/7/2018 at 12:33 PM, John Cuthber said:

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

Telling children what to do falls squarely in the realm of education.

Edited January 8, 2018 by John Cuthber

[MigL]

And that won't solve the problem either, John.
Neither our sons or daughters behave as we would like.

But, yes its a start.

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

 Exploring more options for women to be unobtrusive and unremarkable seems like repeating bad history.

Personally I wish everyone would get away from the "dress modestly" theme as I find it to be a waste of time as well as a misrepresentation of what I've suggested. Putting mechanisms in place to educate young gymnasts and other women in similar circumstances, clear and effective ways to report abuse, understanding who is most vulnerable, support for those who choose to speak out, a public debate on sexual messaging in the media, etc. will in my mind address areas of weakness and deliver concrete results.

Quote

I think we've explored the what-else-should-women-do options long enough

As you wish.

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

How did you get the idea that anyone was determining what you could discuss?

From you of course! When you suggested that perhaps it was not a good idea to discuss how women can avoid risk by saying "And it therefore doesn't matter what your intent is, or how carefully you word stuff, what they will hear is "she shouldn't have dressed like a slut".

As I said, I am not going to quit talking about it just because of how some criminal might use my words to justify his actions.

Quote

In particular, you are discussing things on this site where only the Mods  make that determination.

Are  you calling them the dregs of society?

You swing back and forth from honest discussion to trolling faster than anyone I've ever seen.

[John Cuthber]

But I'm not saying you shouldn't discus it.

I was asking if you realised that , in saying things  like "she failed to assess the risks properly" you are offering support to those sh**s who think "she asked for it"?

I'm not saying you can't discuss it, I'm asking if you understand the consequences of saying it?

Now, since

(1) the only folk who can prevent you discussing it here are the Mods, and

(2)you said that you were being prevented from discussing it by the dregs of society

 

my point stands.

Or do you accept that, in fact, the dregs of society are not telling you what you can discuss?

Obviously, if you stop making the assumption that you were right about that, the problem goes away.

 

[zapatos]

 

15 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

(2)you said that you were being prevented from discussing it by the dregs of society

 

No, I didn't. Please pay attention.  I said  "I choose not to let the dregs of this world determine what I can and cannot discuss".

Basically the complete opposite of what you 'think' I said.

[Phi for All]

19 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Personally I wish everyone would get away from the "dress modestly" theme as I find it to be a waste of time as well as a misrepresentation of what I've suggested. Putting mechanisms in place to educate young gymnasts and other women in similar circumstances, clear and effective ways to report abuse, understanding who is most vulnerable, support for those who choose to speak out, a public debate on sexual messaging in the media, etc. will in my mind address areas of weakness and deliver concrete results.

I think we have already have mechanisms similar to what you suggest, but something is making them ineffective, misdirected, and almost universally worthless. It seems to be an attitude of tacit permissiveness when it comes to men giving men the benefit of the doubt when women claim the shadow of doubt has been exceeded. 

I think the biggest area of weakness is the male tolerance of male predatory behavior. It allows some men to turn their predatory problem into some woman's assault problem, and if we can't stand against that, why do we think we're protecting them by making it easier to report abuse?

39 minutes ago, zapatos said:

As you wish.

Hey, I'm not directing this conversation. If you have more on the what-else-should-women-do angle, feel free to share. 

I feel like you view this the way you would prepare your home for a big storm, seeing it as common sense to cover the windows, store some drinking water, tie down anything that will blow away, all the things that will improve the overall outcome. I don't look at the kind of predatory aggression we're talking about as an implacable storm I can only defend against. I see it as something human that can be dealt with offensively if we stop ignoring half the equation.

[John Cuthber]

OK, let's have a look at what you said

"I choose not to let the dregs of this world determine what I can and cannot discuss".

It implies that you somehow have to make that choice; do you- or do you not- "let the dregs of this world determine what I can and cannot discuss".

Otherwise it's a bit meaningless. Forgive me if I mistakenly assumed that you posted something with an actual meaning.

 

For that choice to be meaningful there have to be two  valid options; the one where "the dregs of this world determine what I can and cannot discuss" and the one where they don't.

And, that requires a situation where the dregs at least might determine what you discuss.

Unless the dregs are participating in this discussion, they don't (and can't) determine anything here.

 

Consider, for a moment, the situation where you  made the other choice- the exact opposite of what you said

"I choose not to let the dregs of this world determine what I can and cannot discuss".

 

How was that going to happen unless the only people who can determine what you discuss (here) are the dregs?

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

 Forgive me if I mistakenly assumed that you posted something with an actual meaning.
 

Clearly there is no point in continuing this conversation.

[John Cuthber]

This, on the other hand, is rather more interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/powerful-art-exhibit-powerfully-answers-the-question-what-were-you-wearing_us_59baddd2e4b02da0e1405d2a

[zapatos]

28 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think we have already have mechanisms similar to what you suggest, but something is making them ineffective, misdirected, and almost universally worthless.

Personally I think they are too weak or too dependent on people who have an interest in keeping things quiet. Young girls should not have to decide whether or not a doctor's 'treatment' is appropriate; maybe something more concrete, like requiring a woman appropriately trained to be there for all treatments. You shouldn't have to count on someone with a vested interest in the alleged perpetrator decide how to deal with a sexual harassment claim.

Quote

I think the biggest area of weakness is the male tolerance of male predatory behavior.
 

Or more than tolerance, such as actively supporting the prick.

Quote

I feel like you view this the way you would prepare your home for a big storm, seeing it as common sense to cover the windows, store some drinking water, tie down anything that will blow away, all the things that will improve the overall outcome.

Yeah, that's a pretty accurate assessment. I blame it on my Boy Scout training.

Quote

I don't look at the kind of predatory aggression we're talking about as an implacable storm I can only defend against. I see it as something human that can be dealt with offensively if we stop ignoring half the equation.

I agree that taking the offense is a good thing, but I feel the offense will be most effective if done by the potential victims. There are laws on the books and plenty of us offering support from the sidelines, but if the woman doesn't feel empowered and confident in taking action the moment it occurs I don't have much confidence of success. Someone has to call out the crime, loud and clear, and know that help will be on the way.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

 

As to mechanisms for bringing this change about all we've gotten is that women should continue to be assaulted ( without taking precautions )as that will bring about this change.

Who the hell has suggested that?

Quote

Not one person has made concrete suggestions, like changing laws ( as if that would help in other countries ), changing the education system to empower women, or alternatively, educate men on women's issues ( but alas, there will still be people intent on doing bad things to others ).

So who is taking the more realistic approach here ?

I think the reason nobody has suggested anything concrete is that we're mired in the conversation one has before getting to that point. You can't discuss solutions when it's not clear that everyone agrees what the problem is. And changing the focus of the discussion is a symptom of that.

 

Risk mitigation or no, short skirts or walking in a bad part of town is not the cause of rape. Or is there disagreement on this?

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Who the hell has suggested that?

Well, I realize this probably isn't what they meant exactly, but between John and iNow, it was pretty close:

Quote

It's  a very human response; "let some other parent suffer the tragedy of  their daughter getting attacked instead of me".

Does it make the world a better place?

The point is that, when everybody's daughter goes out dressed like a nun or whatever, there will be just as many attacks and the dicks responsible will still pretend that it's the victim's fault because you told them it was OK for them to do that.

Similarly, if all the women go out stark naked then there will be pretty much the same number of attacks- the dicks responsible will make their choice of victim on some other basis and, by extension, you will say they were right to do so.

 

The problem here is not women's clothes. The problem is that there is a set of men who feel that they are "entitled" to get their leg over without regard for anyone else's feelings about it. By saying "they were wearing a short skirt" you are validating that entitlement. You are perpetuating thee myth that "they deserved it" or even "they were asking for it" -which is exactly the sort of thing those inadequate blokes say.

You talk of risk management. What you are doing is risk transfer. You propose to move the risk from your daughter to some other poor soul's daughter.

That's not really solving the problem.

Quote

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

The latter quote was in response to me saying " 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."

[MigL]

I shouldn't have to explain, John, because you're a very bright guy...
The comment was made earlier ( don't recall by whom ) that saying women should practice risk mitigation gives the perpetrators an excuse for their behaviour.
So their logic is that we should not discuss risc mitigation because it enables the predators, who Zap named 'the dregs of society'.
Those are the dregs that are effectively preventing him from discussing how to protect his wife or ( hypothetical ) daughter.

Just got back from lunch ( I'm NA Eastern time) with a woman, and would you believe this was the topic of discussion.
And it turns out she agrees. She considers the attitude of some men just one of the many risks she has to consider every day ( as do we all ) and she would be stupid not to try to mitigate some of those risks.

I could be wrong, but it seems Gees was the only woman on this thread ( the OP ) . and she seems to have left. I know we have other women members. Your opinion is extremely valuable, much more so than ours. Please share your ideas on the issue.

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Risk mitigation or no, short skirts or walking in a bad part of town is not the cause of rape. Or is there disagreement on this?

I think we can all agree to that.

[MigL]

"Who the hell suggested that ?"

Maybe I should go back and find it...
It was suggested that the civil rights movement went forward because Rosa Parks and M L King put themselves in precarious situations to enact change.

That's who.

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Just got back from lunch ( I'm NA Eastern time) with a woman, and would you believe this was the topic of discussion.
And it turns out she agrees. She considers the attitude of some men just one of the many risks she has to consider every day ( as do we all ) and she would be stupid not to try to mitigate some of those risks.

This is exactly why so many investigations into sexual assault start with the assumption that the woman was doing something stupid, yet we all have stated that there are so many predators out there that abnormal risk mitigation is required, and corroborated by your colleague. Doesn't that seem a trifle fucked up to you? "We know there are plenty of sharks out there, but we're going to start by insulting your intelligence and assume you threw blood in the water before swimming".

Then comes the argument that this is just the way things are. This fuels the frustration behind the pushback. "The way things are" needs to change, and I think it's predominantly men's fault. Too many men want to control women's bodies for too many bad reasons.