Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Women's Reactions to Rape
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 166 of 235 (161945)
11-20-2004 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by crashfrog
11-19-2004 7:50 PM


Not just valid, but obvious, and the solution men would implement if the roles were reversed.
Before I make a statement are you suggesting that "the solution men would implement" is the right way?
The "root problem" is men raping women.
No, the root problem is the attitude/thinking behind the act.
There's nobody to be accountable but the rapists, and we already hold them accountable to the greatest degree we're able to..
I've already pointed out that the punishment for drugs and DWI is stricter that it is for crimes against women and children...so what you have written is not technically true.
A rape has already occured, according to the parameters of the study.
Well, that masks the number of rapes which then compounds any calculations made or based on said number..not good.
Did self-defense prevent greater injury?
What is "greater" injury? Greater than what exactly? This is a subjective parameter, and presumes to know what the attacker would have done IF the woman had done nothing.
It is ignorance that gives a false sense of security, and it is your position that stresses ignorance over preparedness.
As I have already pointed out to Worm...are you by default saying that a woman who does not know self-defense is doing "nothing"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2004 7:50 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2004 8:04 PM Taqless has replied

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 167 of 235 (161946)
11-20-2004 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by wormjitsu
11-20-2004 9:21 AM


What false sence of security?
As I've clearly stated: Self-defense is NOT, in most situations, preventative!
I think I know what you are saying.."Men shouldn't do that sort of thing!"
No, it's not, I saying as a society we need to stop treating men as victims of their own bodies and set a good example by our actions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by wormjitsu, posted 11-20-2004 9:21 AM wormjitsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by wormjitsu, posted 11-20-2004 9:37 PM Taqless has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 168 of 235 (161948)
11-20-2004 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Taqless
11-20-2004 7:53 PM


Before I make a statement are you suggesting that "the solution men would implement" is the right way?
I can't say that for sure, but the evidence suggests to me that yes, it would tend to discourage rapes.
Well, that masks the number of rapes which then compounds any calculations made or based on said number..not good.
No, I disagree. If a man starts to rape you, but you manage to chase him off, he's still guilty of a sexual assualt. If he wasn't, we wouldn't be able to prosecute him.
What is "greater" injury? Greater than what exactly?
Than what actually happened.
are you by default saying that a woman who does not know self-defense is doing "nothing"?
Yes, but I expand "self-defense" to include things like avoiding poorly-lit areas, avoiding intoxication or impairement in unsafe areas, making your friends aware of where you are, etc. In other words, being aware of our surroundings and making sure that you have options if something bad happens. Actual physical combat prowess is simply one of those options.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Taqless, posted 11-20-2004 7:53 PM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Taqless, posted 11-20-2004 8:28 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 173 by wormjitsu, posted 11-20-2004 9:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 169 of 235 (161954)
11-20-2004 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by crashfrog
11-20-2004 8:04 PM


I can't say that for sure, but the evidence suggests to me that yes, it would tend to discourage rapes.
However, this evidence you are mentioning does not support
-hand-to-hand combat
-gun toting
-distrust of men
Yes, but I expand "self-defense" to include things like avoiding poorly-lit areas, avoiding intoxication or impairement in unsafe areas, making your friends aware of where you are, etc. In other words, being aware of our surroundings and making sure that you have options if something bad happens. Actual physical combat prowess is simply one of those options.
Well, at this juncture the "expanded" version is convenient for you since most of it is already in practice and taught. Which makes it ambiguous as to why you felt women were "doing nothing" before?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2004 8:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2004 8:40 PM Taqless has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 170 of 235 (161955)
11-20-2004 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Taqless
11-20-2004 8:28 PM


However, this evidence you are mentioning does not support
Well, I disagree. From the study:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/sexoff/sexoff.html#id2635993
Almost 20% of victims fought their rapist or succeeded in capturing him. Another 11% were able to scare their rapist off. Unfortunately the study does not go into more detail than that but it's safe to say that weapons or training or both almost certainly came into play for the majority of these incidents.
And I don't think "distrust of men" is a self-defense tactic all by itself. It would be idiotic, for instance, to distrust a man but take no other action to prevent a sexual assault from him. It's quite disingeuous of you to misrepresent my position by suggesting that I view "distrust of men" as a solution in itself.
Well, at this juncture the "expanded" version is convenient for you since most of it is already in practice and taught.
Perhaps, but what I'm asking is, why do they stop there? When a reasonable person can see that there are even more things you can do to be prepared?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Taqless, posted 11-20-2004 8:28 PM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Taqless, posted 11-22-2004 2:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
wormjitsu
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 235 (161960)
11-20-2004 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Taqless
11-20-2004 7:58 PM


Tagless- "I saying as a society we need to stop treating men as victims of their own bodies and set a good example by our actions."
This is indeed an incredible task. If you look at history, attitudes take a LONG time to change. I wonder how you think in what way men are supposed to change their attitude and what method is supposed to effectively cause this to occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Taqless, posted 11-20-2004 7:58 PM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Taqless, posted 11-22-2004 3:28 PM wormjitsu has not replied

  
wormjitsu
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 235 (161961)
11-20-2004 9:45 PM


BTW..I think that distrust in men is a very bad idea. I've seen women that distrust every man they come up against, and it often results in them emitting fearful vibes which makes them more of a target. Distrust is bad, it's not the same as a woman who is smart and aware of her surroundings.

  
wormjitsu
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 235 (161962)
11-20-2004 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by crashfrog
11-20-2004 8:04 PM


crashfrog- "Yes, but I expand "self-defense" to include things like avoiding poorly-lit areas, avoiding intoxication or impairement in unsafe areas, making your friends aware of where you are, etc. In other words, being aware of our surroundings and making sure that you have options if something bad happens. Actual physical combat prowess is simply one of those options."
I couldn't have said it any better myself, Crashfrog.
Self defense is more than being able to defend yourself when someone is attacking you. It is being able to react before the attack starts.
Anything from being with freinds in large numbers to shouting for help to just running can be a form of self defense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2004 8:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 174 of 235 (162097)
11-21-2004 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by crashfrog
11-20-2004 3:34 PM


quote:
If you place avoiding interpersonal friction over your physical safety, I can't argue with that. Though I don't see that as a reasonable set of priorities.
It's not "interpersonal friction" that would bother me.
I already live with an underlying wariness of strangers on a gradient: people I don't know, men I don't know, men I know a little, men I know well.
I don't want to lump all of them together, because that's not appropriate.
I don't want to live in more distrust and more fear than I already have to, which is what you seem to be suggesting I do.
Sort of an "Assume every man is a horrible monster and fear and hate him first, ask questions later."
It's what would happen to ME that I wouldn't like, not other people.
quote:
And honestly, living this way isn't that bad. Adolescent males live this way just fine. I get along perfectly well with my male friends, despite the mutual understanding that we're prepared to attack each other in earnest in self-defense or on principle, should it become necessary. Men have lived that way for centuries, in every culture.
Wait, are you telling me that you would beat up your friends, or that they would attack you?
I read this to my husband and he gave me a really funny look, and said, "I don't hang out with anybody who thinks about attacking me. If that was a thought I ever had about a person I knew, I wouldn't hang out with them. Why would I?"
I asked him about the "should it become necessary" part of what you said, and he said, "Well, sure, if aliens invaded the Earth and took control of my friends and forced them to attack me, I would defend myself."
Seriously, neither Zhimbo nor I know any men like you seem to be describing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2004 3:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2004 7:10 PM nator has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 175 of 235 (162109)
11-21-2004 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by nator
11-21-2004 4:28 PM


I already live with an underlying wariness of strangers on a gradient: people I don't know, men I don't know, men I know a little, men I know well.
So change the gradient: Men who you're at the greatest statistical risk of being raped by, men who you're at less of a risk of being raped by, men you can trust not to rape you.
I mean, it already sounds like you're on that gradient, you just have different terms for the categories.
Wait, are you telling me that you would beat up your friends, or that they would attack you?
Yeah. And they me. Does that surprise you?
For most of Western civilization, a man was not fully dressed without a sword, even if he lived far from any battlefront or border. Who did you think these men were expecting to fight? Each other. Even their friends. That's how men have lived for hundreds of years - prepared to do battle with each other when the "rules" told them they had to.
Now, I'm not sure to the degree that the "rules" influence my behavior, or the behavior of my friends. It was hyperbole on my part to suggest that we would definately fight if the "rules" demanded it. Probably we wouldn't. Obviously, your husband and his friends have rightly relegated these rules to the dustbin of history. But I know that the rules are there; that's just how I was raised. And that's the way it is for my friends, too. We'd certainly feel like we were "supposed" to fight, if, say, my friend called my wife a slut or something. Would we? I hope not. But I'd be prepared to do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by nator, posted 11-21-2004 4:28 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by nator, posted 11-22-2004 8:43 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 187 by Taqless, posted 11-22-2004 3:52 PM crashfrog has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 176 of 235 (162283)
11-22-2004 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by crashfrog
11-21-2004 7:10 PM


quote:
We'd certainly feel like we were "supposed" to fight, if, say, my friend called my wife a slut or something. Would we? I hope not. But I'd be prepared to do it.
But that's just a verbal insult and hardly justification for any kind of physical violence. I mean, I am sitting here reading this and I really cannot believe that you and other people think that these "rules" are valid or appropriate in the least.
Sure, Jim and I would both be angry, but grownups don't violently attack one another because they are angry over some verbal insult.
I'm sorry Crash, but that seems like a sereiously juvenile schoolyard attitude.
The only time violence would be appropriate is to defend oneself from a physical attack.
In other words, when you have no other choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2004 7:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2004 10:42 AM nator has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 235 (162317)
11-22-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by crashfrog
11-20-2004 7:37 PM


quote:
That's exactly what arming women does. Men stop thinking of women as physically powerless creatures that they have to protect, and as capable combatants with the power to protect themselves.
... until you disarm them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by crashfrog, posted 11-20-2004 7:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2004 10:44 AM contracycle has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 178 of 235 (162318)
11-22-2004 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by nator
11-22-2004 8:43 AM


But that's just a verbal insult and hardly justification for any kind of physical violence.
For hundreds of years, though, it was. And it still feels like it would be, to me.
I mean, I am sitting here reading this and I really cannot believe that you and other people think that these "rules" are valid or appropriate in the least.
Like I said, though, they were, for hundreds of years. Men dealt with it, somehow. Many men still feel the same way, and they still deal with it. Which was my point, in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by nator, posted 11-22-2004 8:43 AM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 179 of 235 (162320)
11-22-2004 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by contracycle
11-22-2004 10:40 AM


... until you disarm them.
Indeed. Somehow, men have already managed to accomplish that. I'm simply suggesting we restore the balance of power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by contracycle, posted 11-22-2004 10:40 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by contracycle, posted 11-22-2004 10:51 AM crashfrog has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 235 (162324)
11-22-2004 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by crashfrog
11-22-2004 10:44 AM


quote:
Indeed. Somehow, men have already managed to accomplish that. I'm simply suggesting we restore the balance of power
I disagree; its merely a technical problem to be solved. As soon as you place the responsibility for rape on wonman being armed and trained to use those arms, you have made it clear that the only counter-argument to rape is violence; that rape must be considered a normal part of our social environment and women should, alone, simply prepare for the inevitability. That is not acceptable in my book; do we then start to discuss how hard she resisted, as well as how she was dressed, when deciding if an accusation of rape is a crime?
And it is certianly not a viable suggestion as a solution to a social problem. You're basically saying "women, you're on your own, fight back or suffer." It places all responsibility onto the woman and alleviates me of responsibility for their actions. It's totally unacceptable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2004 10:44 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 11-22-2004 10:58 AM contracycle has not replied
 Message 188 by Taqless, posted 11-22-2004 3:58 PM contracycle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024