|
|
Post by housesparrow on May 14, 2009 6:07:05 GMT
Riot, there is nothing wrong with a service being available to women only provided an equally appropriate and accessible service is provided for men. The quote from Everso's earlier post just suggested not only that no such service was available, but tough luck. It was an appalling remark to make. Just to make it clear: I would have been more than happy to speak to any men who happened to phone, rather than pass them on. Unfortunately, that wasn't what the centre approved of. As I said, to be fair, I had very few calls from men anyway. At the same time, I don't really think it's up to a women's group to organise a rape counselling service for men. If that is something men need then there must be men out there who would organise it? Just Googling 'Rape Crisis for men' brings up a raft of different websites dedicated to just that. Some of the sites cater for both men and women as well. The centre I worked for was Rape and Sexual Abuse, not Rape Crisis. I didn't run the place so I'm not certain as to the exact figures for public funding, but I can tell you it was pretty piss-poor because we were always fund-raising. Everso, it was not your own attitude I was criticising but that of the organisation you worked for. It just seemed to smack of 1970s male sexism. But now that the whole thing has been put in perspective yes, I can see that separate services for men and women are the right thing - so long as they are actually there! |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 14, 2009 10:10:39 GMT
Charities might get involved but special provision for female rape victims carries overtones of traditional special provision for women and of sex as a special sort of offence. The ideal would be that the police offer links to the kind of support service appropriate to them. An unthought-of side-effect to victim support is that it allows the victim to admit to need for support instead of feeling obliged to prove their survival by taking revenge on the aggressor. There does seem to be very traditional elements about rape crisis implying that sex is something a woman would (and should) find exceptionally horrific compared to any other kind of assault and that the weaker sex need support where big strong men do not. The difference from the shame of not being a virgin sounds to me far less than is often claimed. Unfortunately, I suppose the kind of woman who can say that she's been raped but it's not a crisis or she hasn't been raped but has been traumatised with threats to take a blowlamp to her breasts doesn't fit some very traditional attitudes that still survive clad in trendy new language. When a girl says that she lost her virginity unexpectedly aged fourteen in a hedge being told not to "Follow me back for five minutes so people won't guess what we've been doing" it sounds pretty disgusting. But she didn't think so even if she shagged every male she could get hold of thereafter and once boasted of "Running this twelve-year old virgin down to give him a blow job in front of my mates". (She didn't catch him). It is true that sodomy has been redefined as rape. That is fundamentally wrong since the anus is not necessarily a sexual organ. Rape means unwilling vaginal intercourse, so of a man means a woman sitting on him. He is usually immune: it hurts enough to lose anything to sit on! To class enforced male anal intercourse as rape ignores that that is often the situation with women too, with all the implication of rejecting them as women with a sex organ for the purpose, to degrade them as boys. Piffle by name, piffle by content. As I've said to you before, your prose is very dense and close, so sometimes it's not that easy to pick out what you mean. However, throughout your post you are making the fundamental mistake of equating rape with sex. Your arguments therefore end up being of no relevance to the matter under discussion. Your use of metaphors such as a threats to take a blowlamp to a woman's breasts are vaguely disturbing. Where did that come from? What the hell are you prattling on about 14 year old girls losing their virginity in hedges for? That has absolutely nothing to do with the matter under discussion, and it;s CREEPY that you constantly want to talk about these kind of things in irrelevant contexts. Hear me? CREEPY. I'm sure you don't mean to be creepy, but I'm going to tell you straight Piffle, sometimes that's how you come across. |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 14, 2009 11:11:23 GMT
Riot, I'm sorry if your reaction to anything you don't like is that you find it 'creepy' to discuss rape and trauma in a discussion about rape and trauma. Maybe if you don't like to discuss subjects like this, you should stay away from them.
Points in order. Yes, my prose is close. That's because I get sick of people looking for a way to avoid discussion complaining about 'waffle'. I assume that if I'm intelligent enough to write it, you're intelligent enough to read it.
Not I am not equating sex with rape, I see the law and the general attitude to all sexual crimes as being in some way worse than any other kind of crime, echoes of Victorian fate worse than death.
Threats of torture. I could have used Germaine Greer's comparison of having your nose cut off. I could have used actual cases of having a broomstick or a broken bottle shoved up you. Instead I modernised something from a particularly violent historical novel about ancient Sparta, probably one of Frank Yerby's.
Why am I prattling on about a 14 year old girl losing her virginity in a hedge? Because I consider it rape but she didn't. What has that to do with a discussion about rape and trauma? WTF do you think a rape that she didn't (at least consciously) treat as traumatic has to do with a discussion on rape and trauma?
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 14, 2009 11:45:24 GMT
OK Piffle, but the discussion isn't actually ABOUT rape and trauma, is it?
It's about whether rape services should be provided to one gender, both, specialist, funded, etc.
What I find CREEPY is that you start going on about specific sexual incidents or whatever that are just not relevant to the debate. I honestly don't like graphic sexual discussions on message boards, and I don't think they're remotely relevant to what we're actually talking about.
Now you're free to go off on one one of your diatribes about puritanism or whatever, just as I'm free to object to graphic sexual talk.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 14, 2009 11:47:54 GMT
And in the meantime, what a relief to find out they're finally getting to the bottom of the reasons for rape in Bodmin.  www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Scantily-clad-teenagers-risk-sex-crime-soars/article-920892-detail/article.htmlPARENTS are being blamed for letting their drunk, scantily-clad daughters as young as 13 roam the streets of Bodmin following reports of a steep rise in sexual offences.(Of course, if you read the actual article you'll see that the rise in 'sexual offences' in the town has very little to do with on-street attacks . . but hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of blaming girls - and their parents - for the fact they're attacked.) |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 14, 2009 14:46:27 GMT
Well, if you want you can take it to an argument about which women's groups are 'genuine' and which have a sexist agenda, since that was what preceded my comments. Or we can take your pious stand that young girls wandering about drunk and quite possibly making sexual suggestions are as free from any responsibility (which you turn to blame) for attacks on them as - ooh let's say, people who leave their car running or the house wide open unattended for being robbed.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 14, 2009 15:25:49 GMT
Well, if you want you can take it to an argument about which women's groups are 'genuine' and which have a sexist agenda, since that was what preceded my comments. Or we can take your pious stand that young girls wandering about drunk and quite possibly making sexual suggestions are as free from any responsibility (which you turn to blame) for attacks on them as - ooh let's say, people who leave their car running or the house wide open unattended for being robbed. Yup. All these people are not responsible for the crimes perpetuated upon them. They may be silly. They may be taking risks. But they're not breaking the law, they're going about their lawful business, etc. etc. We know the arguments on this message-board regular - ("how far are victims of crime responsible for their own victimisation.") and my answer is always the same. Being stupid does not give anyone else the right to commit a crime against you. End of. |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 14, 2009 17:25:31 GMT
There is a difference between responsibility and blame. You won't get any sympathy from the police whimpering that it's not your fault nasty people came and ransacked the house you left unlocked while you went on holiday. OK so you're not to blame but so what? Do you expect everybody else to be running round looking after you so you never have to take some responsibility for yourself? This is the sort of arrogant selfishness that really really pisses the professionals off. Because some idiot knows better than the warnings, somebody has to risk their life getting them out of the water when the red flag is flying or off the mountain when the fog warning was on or put them back together because it's their right to say what they frigging like to anybody including a bunch of skinheads - free speech innit? Some bloody fool ignores weather warnings and tries to sail a hundred miles in a dinghy without radar or sonar or charts or radio and change their destination without telling anybody and it's always somebody else's fault, "Somebody should have stopped them". Somebody should have locked them up!
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 14, 2009 17:36:26 GMT
There is a difference between responsibility and blame. You won't get any sympathy from the police whimpering that it's not your fault nasty people came and ransacked the house you left unlocked while you went on holiday. OK so you're not to blame but so what? Do you expect everybody else to be running round looking after you so you never have to take some responsibility for yourself? Were i the victim of a crime, i wouldn't expect the police to make a judgement about if, or how much, I am to blame, and to dedicate their resources accordingly. They may decide to give me advice about property or personal safety and security because of how I'd been behaving or acting when the crime was committed. But the behaviour of a victim rarely affects the culpability of the offender, and when it does we call it 'provocation' and recognise it as such in court. Leaving your house unlocked, or your car unlocked with the keys in it, or wearing a short skirt, is NOT provocation. |
|
|
|
Post by everso on May 14, 2009 17:51:01 GMT
There is a difference between responsibility and blame. You won't get any sympathy from the police whimpering that it's not your fault nasty people came and ransacked the house you left unlocked while you went on holiday. OK so you're not to blame but so what? Do you expect everybody else to be running round looking after you so you never have to take some responsibility for yourself? This is the sort of arrogant selfishness that really really pisses the professionals off. Because some idiot knows better than the warnings, somebody has to risk their life getting them out of the water when the red flag is flying or off the mountain when the fog warning was on or put them back together because it's their right to say what they frigging like to anybody including a bunch of skinheads - free speech innit? Some bloody fool ignores weather warnings and tries to sail a hundred miles in a dinghy without radar or sonar or charts or radio and change their destination without telling anybody and it's always somebody else's fault, "Somebody should have stopped them". Somebody should have locked them up![/color] There's a difference. The weather isn't a person.
I entirely agree with Riot. People are stupid when they don't lock up their valuables. My daughter, in a tearing rush a couple of weeks ago, omitted to lock her bike at the station. She realised it when she got on the train, quickly got off and hurtled downstairs and her bike, in those couple of minutes, had been stolen. Yes, she was stupid to forget to lock up her bike. But SHE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IT BEING STOLEN! There is a difference.
Young girls who dress in revealing clothes (and I'm the first one to tut-tut) are not responsible if they get raped or sexually abused. They may have been silly and they may have ignored warnings, but it's the man that decides to rape. |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 14, 2009 18:00:34 GMT
You'll just have to accept that the days of special consideration for the weaker sex are over. You can weasel whatever words you like but there is no difference in irresponsibly between leaving your valuables lying about and presenting yourself alone where you stand increased danger of physical attack, sexual or otherwise. The fact that it's the man who decides to rape or the burglar who decides to burgle makes absolutely no difference to the irresponsibility of wafting around in a dream saying they shouldn't do it so you don't need to take any precautions.
|
|
|
|
Post by everso on May 14, 2009 18:22:49 GMT
You'll just have to accept that the days of special consideration for the weaker sex are over. You can weasel whatever words you like but there is no difference in irresponsibly between leaving your valuables lying about and presenting yourself alone where you stand increased danger of physical attack, sexual or otherwise. The fact that it's the man who decides to rape or the burglar who decides to burgle makes absolutely no difference to the irresponsibility of wafting around in a dream saying they shouldn't do it so you don't need to take any precautions. So what you're saying is that if a girl that wears revealing clothes is raped it's a 50-50 thing? Christ, are you a muslim? Edit: Actually that's not a nice thing to have said. I should have said "are you a Saudi" as not all muslims have that opinion of women.  |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 14, 2009 18:23:20 GMT
You'll just have to accept that the days of special consideration for the weaker sex are over. You can weasel whatever words you like but there is no difference in irresponsibly between leaving your valuables lying about and presenting yourself alone where you stand increased danger of physical attack, sexual or otherwise. The fact that it's the man who decides to rape or the burglar who decides to burgle makes absolutely no difference to the irresponsibility of wafting around in a dream saying they shouldn't do it so you don't need to take any precautions. I really don't have to accept anything at all you have to say about anything. Don't tell me what I do or don't have to accept, unless you have corroborated evidence to support your point (which you don't, as it's only your opinion and not a verifiable fact.) By your way of reckoning we should all - men and women (as, after all, men are more at risk of physical assault on the streets) stay locked inside to minimise our risk. Oh - except that women are more likely to be attacked in the home than the streets. So men all shut up in purdah, women out wandering round the streets. That's how we could reduce crime and everybody could all behave very responsibly. |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 14, 2009 20:14:54 GMT
If you take acting responsibly to the the ridiculous extreme, yes. If you stop assuming that women should have the special protected status they might have once had in some quarters then you accept that women take the same responsibility for avoiding risk as men. As you say, young men stand an even higher risk of assault on the streets. Therefore they do not go wandering around in a daze on the basis that it shouldn't happen so it won't and even the mere suggestion of taking responsibility for their own safety in some way blames them for being a victim.
Why do some women find it so outrageous to take the same care for their safety as men? Most don't, they take self-defence classes (pretty useless if you're surprised), keep bags where they can't be snatched easily, avoid lonely areas late at night and do not surround themselves with a crowd of drunks they have never met before, keep in the light just like cautious men.
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 14, 2009 20:45:44 GMT
If you take acting responsibly to the the ridiculous extreme, yes. If you stop assuming that women should have the special protected status they might have once had in some quarters then you accept that women take the same responsibility for avoiding risk as men. As you say, young men stand an even higher risk of assault on the streets. Therefore they do not go wandering around in a daze on the basis that it shouldn't happen so it won't and even the mere suggestion of taking responsibility for their own safety in some way blames them for being a victim. Why do some women find it so outrageous to take the same care for their safety as men? Most don't, they take self-defence classes (pretty useless if you're surprised), keep bags where they can't be snatched easily, avoid lonely areas late at night and do not surround themselves with a crowd of drunks they have never met before, keep in the light just like cautious men. Dear God, man. Let us have a life! Use the statistics, or at least use Riotgrrls reporting, most rapes are not stranger rape, rapes are not comitted because someone's skirt was short, there are exceptions but most rapes on women are comitted by people the woman trusted. Perhaps we should take responsibility for every bastard walking this fine earth and stop talking to men altogether, a woman only society. |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 14, 2009 20:52:34 GMT
You'll just have to accept that the days of special consideration for the weaker sex are over. You can weasel whatever words you like but there is no difference in irresponsibly between leaving your valuables lying about and presenting yourself alone where you stand increased danger of physical attack, sexual or otherwise. The fact that it's the man who decides to rape or the burglar who decides to burgle makes absolutely no difference to the irresponsibility of wafting around in a dream saying they shouldn't do it so you don't need to take any precautions. Don't bother referencing this ''weaker sex'' theory. Only you are buying it. Complete rubbish. Standing about, as you describe, is the equivalent of owning a wallet. Do you think you should take the responsibility of attack by a mugger because you own a wallet? I understand the point of not walking where muggers are likely to be but come on, women understand the point about not standing where danger of rape might lurk. They really DO understand it, Piffle. I have never met a woman who does not consider these things but we must strive for balance all the time. We must have some life. Danger of rape lurks everywhere. You take a taxi home. It could be your taxi driver who rapes you. Get it? |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 14, 2009 21:24:10 GMT
You'll just have to accept that the days of special consideration for the weaker sex are over. Don't bother referencing this ''weaker sex'' theory. Only you are buying it. No. The people who are expecting the protected status traditional to pretending to be the weaker sex are Riot and now you. I am just saying that women should expect to take as much care for their personal safety as men and not rely on a (probably imaginary) traditional status offering them protection as the weaker sex. Ya boo you boo you too.! We can all stamp our foot and shout 'Rubbish!' when we don't want to hear the bloody obvious. There is not difference at all between being taking care one way and being careful another way: both are taking care. No. Did I say anything to suggest you should? Do you think you should take the responsibility of attack by a mugger if you walk through a dark lonely sink estate waving a handful of notes and screaming "Look at my wad, loadsa dosh"? Do you think it insulting to suggest that is not a very responsible thing to do? That is exactly what I have been saying. I even specifically mentioned keeping your eyes open, avoiding places of known ill repute, even learning self-defence techniques. So why do you find a problem with it? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 14, 2009 23:10:23 GMT
If you take acting responsibly to the the ridiculous extreme, yes. If you stop assuming that women should have the special protected status they might have once had in some quarters then you accept that women take the same responsibility for avoiding risk as men. As you say, young men stand an even higher risk of assault on the streets. Therefore they do not go wandering around in a daze on the basis that it shouldn't happen so it won't and even the mere suggestion of taking responsibility for their own safety in some way blames them for being a victim. Why do some women find it so outrageous to take the same care for their safety as men? Most don't, they take self-defence classes (pretty useless if you're surprised), keep bags where they can't be snatched easily, avoid lonely areas late at night and do not surround themselves with a crowd of drunks they have never met before, keep in the light just like cautious men. This 'special protected status' that women had . . was it before or after they were allowed to own property, given the vote, allowed to graduate, entitled not to be raped by their husbands . . just when exactly was this wonderful era? As for your point about women not taking more care of their safety - as has already been pointed out, men are far more at risk of violence outside the home than women, and, indeed, most crimes of violence are committed against men, so clearly men are far worse at taking responsibility for their own safety than women. Of course, women are less safe in the home, so if we want to take full responsibility for our safety we have to be out on the streets all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 14, 2009 23:20:35 GMT
Possible men are worse at taking responsibility for themselves, or maybe it shows that women are not at as much risk as they often claim. So in that case, and adding Mittens's observation that rape is less likely from a stranger than from somebody you live with, why do you react with such outrage and rant on about blame for saying that females, especially underage drunken ones, should take equal responsibility for their self-protection as males? Why the reaction that to expect a women or girl to look out for her own protection the same as a male in some way blames her for being a victim when you do not say the same of men?
The special protected status that women who march saying idiot things like Reclaim the night that neither women nor most respectable men ever could claim at any time, probably only ever existed in some never-never filmland where men smiled sweetly when women slapped their face for forgetting to compliment them, and when a woman walked down the street brawling men parted to let her pass, thieves never touched her because she was a Lady and in reality the only women likely to be openly on the street alone at night were women on the street whom no man would affront because he knew what their pimps would do, and their clients.
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 14, 2009 23:33:51 GMT
Possible men are worse at taking responsibility for themselves, or maybe it shows that women are not at as much risk as they often claim. So in that case, and adding Mittens's observation that rape is less likely from a stranger than from somebody you live with, why do you react with such outrage and rant on about blame for saying that females, especially underage drunken ones, should take equal responsibility for their self-protection as males? Why the reaction that to expect a female to look out for her own protection the same as a man in some way blames her for being a victim when you do not say the same of men? I know this is not mine to answer but if I may interject... Firstly, victims are not to blame. No matter which gender and with most crimes, victims are not to blame. Could they have done something more to attempt to protect themselves from an attack? Possibly, it is always obvious after the event which little change would have helped avoid it but that's as useful a discussion as a hole in the head when we're discussing how to treat and help victims (which we were originally).. Why is it that whenever the issue of rape is discussed on boards, the issue of how women behave is made paramount to the discussion. Women's behaviour as a factor or statistic is not at all equal to the behaviour of the rapist. Rapes happen in all communities and societies where women act differently to us. Rapes happen in Saudi Arabia where women are not fraternising in bars with strange men or dressing up as older or dressing like a popstar from a video, which is all some of these badly behaved women are doing after all. |
|
A.P.P.S
S C