|
|
Post by trubble on May 14, 2009 23:40:59 GMT
I wish they would bring back those good old days.  |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 14, 2009 23:54:47 GMT
The only people who make an issue of women's behaviour in assault-rape cases are women kicking up hell screaming that it's blaming the victim to suggest that women might take care over protecting themselves in that instance just as in all others and just as men do.
A certain kind of woman accepts that to leave a house or a car very obviously unoccupied, or to walk through certain areas where the police are reluctant to go late at night (or even in the day!) or to swear at a bouncer are just not responsible things to do, but to suggest that anything a woman might do to be equally cautious about sexual self-protection is blaming her for the demon men's behaviour.
Luckily, most women do not feel that way and do not believe the feminist dogma that women are such traditionally sexless innocent children that that is the one area where they can't be expected to understand the need to protect themselves against predators and to say they should amounts to blaming them for being victims.
If you go through a dangerous area and get robbed is that responsible? If you go through a dangerous area and get raped what's the difference? Riot and Mitten say that because it is sex it should be treated differently from other assaults, that in other cases, to look out for yourself is common sense but in sexual matters it is blaming the victim.
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 15, 2009 0:08:25 GMT
Not because it's a sexual matter - it really isn't a sexual matter very much - it's a vicious, nasty, violent, sly, psychopathic attack.
And neither Riot nor I (you can call me Trubble or Trubs btw, mittens is a passing phase) have suggested for a moment that common sense care should not be taken.
The shouts that go up about this in actual cases are because the defence regularly includes some very poor excuse about the victim's behaviour signalling to the perpetrator that she was ok with what was going on.
For example, the real case that was televised where a young woman in the US was raped after accepting a lift home from a stranger.
No one, not the prosecutor for sure, pretended that she hadn't taken a silly risk but that she did get into his car was never an adequate excuse for him breaking her jaw and arm in the fight to hold her down and raping her and leaving her for dead for all he knew.
Yet the defence called this acceptance of a lift, her drunken state, her short skirt, her lack of underwear (tights, yes, but knickers no, VPL) and the fact that she stopped saying no after a couple of punches...!!..as proof that it was reasonable for the man to assume she was enjoying it. he used the excuse that he thought she (a perfect stranger) wanted some rough sex.
Surely this defence is below obscene?!
Is it any wonder people get angry about the attack on the victim's behaviour?
no...not only women..most if not all men I know would find the issue of a woman's behaviour excusing the crime in some way rather tawdry and pathetic and offensive.
Not all men are rapists. There are men that women could throw themselves at who would not even dream of such a thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 15, 2009 1:04:10 GMT
You call it 'excusing' in the way you never would when it is being robbed, because you call it 'offensive' and 'blaming the victim' for a woman to take the same care over herself sexually as she and a man would naturally take in all other cases protecting against assault. You make sexual attack a special case resorting back to idealised sexist tradition that a woman is not capable of sexuality equal to a man or even understanding that while if she waves money at a drunk he might snatch it, if she drags a man into bed and screams fuck me, she is not as capable of him as believing that a sexual demand, and if she walks through men screaming for sex, she is not capable of responsibility for it; she is just a sexless ignorant child. That is what feminists say, nothing a woman can do can hold her to any sexual responsibility equal with a man.
That is, if she drags him into the carpark and demands oral sex then tells him to bugger off because she's happy, or into bed and mounts him, if responds and she changes her mind, he is sexually responsible but she is not, she has the traditional privilege of pretended inferiority that women have always wielded to preserve their dominance over men.
A woman is not capable of sexual expression equal with men, according to tradition=feminism. She is a sexless inferior as incapable of understanding sensuality in herself as she is of recognising that men might feel it too. Since she is incapable of 'liberated lust' to drag a man to bed and thinks it only something degrading done to her, she is incapable of understanding men as experiencing sexual lust that liberated women feel and understand but feminist girls believe shames them into inferior subservience to their idea of men.
You make a difference between sex and everything else because tradition alienates sex from everything else. You need some way to make women look and feel inferior to the dominant rapists you want to believe that men are and despise if they are not.
There is absolutely no difference between self-protection sexually and in every other way. It is only a few girls unable to handle equality who persist in saying that while it is sensible for a woman to protect herself against non-sexual assault, to do so for sexual assault is different and switches the blame from the assaulter to her, as in no other case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 15, 2009 1:26:24 GMT
And neither Riot nor I (you can call me Trubble or Trubs btw, mittens is a passing phase) have suggested for a moment that common sense care should not be taken. sorry, but that is exactly what you have said different from any other kind of crimes. That is what defence does, it defends. If we believe both sexes equal, then why should not a woman seduce a man who gave her a lift equally as a man might try it on with a woman giving him a lift? If a man shows a woman his genitals, should she take that as sexual or not? If a woman does the same to a man, why should she be assessed differently as a traditional sexless inferior? She may be saying "I want sex but I'm fussy whom I choose" but then why should a man expect to treat her like a child incapable of knowing her own mind and dismiss her flashing her fanny because she's only a girl incapable of knowing what she's doing as she would never dismiss him for doing the same? Yes, but those are not how 'feminists' want to imagine the dominant powerful men they wish they could be. That is why women with any self-respect hate feminist rape-envying contempt for them. Only a feminist would go on deliberately confusing women expecting traditional privileged exemption from sexual equality with the man protecting them from sex no matter how much they demand it, with excuses for sexual assault, because only a feminist would cast women as feeble sexless inferiors and men as the dominant rapist aggressors they long to be. No 'normal' man would think that because a woman looks sexy, she is 'available' for sex even when she fights him off either. This is purely the 'man' of feminist longing that they wish they could be. It is what the likes of you and Riot spend all your time hammering at me that you want me to be because I resist your demand to be the dominant rapist that you envy so very much and why 'liberated' women with self-respect want nothing to do with feminist prickless rapists. Supposing a woman does fancy a man for sex just like a man might fancy her? Are men supposed to treat her like a child who does not know what she is doing and reject her because she is only a girl and girls don't know what they are doing, they are sexless inferiors? Feminism says YES. Equality says NO. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 15, 2009 8:43:21 GMT
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. Right. So we've established this 'special protected status' you go on about doesn't actually (or didn't actually) exist. Why am I wasting my time arguing with you when your own arguments aren't coherent from one post to the next? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 15, 2009 8:45:20 GMT
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. I really really resent your misrepresenting my arguments to suit your own weird agenda. As I have already established - or don't you read other peoples posts? - the people who are most at risk in terms of personal safety are MEN. I want to know from you when MEN are going to start being as responsible about their personal safety as women are. Your arguments are all based on your own twisted opinions, and you have not a shred of evidence to support any of the propositions you put forward. Therefore .. I'm out. |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 15, 2009 15:38:48 GMT
Keep changing your argument won't you? First you're saying that it's holding women responsible for getting raped to expect them to take any safeguards against it, now you're saying that women take more safeguards because men suffer more violence.
Contributory negligence. Everybody bears a responsibility to protect themself against acts of personal violation. There is no exception making it an 'impertinence' for women to apply the same principle against acts of sexual nature. You protect your valuables, you protect your self. Women are not a privileged exemption.
My ideas are so twisted in your opinion that they form the basis to all insurance investigations and constant police advertsing to lock cars and houses and look after ourselves. Looks like the whole world is twisted except you!
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 15, 2009 16:41:18 GMT
Piffle, nobody is twisting anything.
The case we are making is incontrovertible.
1. When a person is a victim of a crime unprovoked, the criminal is to blame, regardless of whether or not the victim is behaving in a 'risky' way.
2. There is no particular gender issue here. Indeed, men are more likely to be victims of crime than women, but we don't get endless message board threads about how men 'ask for it'. For some reason it is only rape victims who are considered to be responsible for their own victimisation.
3. Having regard to one's personal safety is sensible and advisable. But it remains the free choice of the individual how they choose to live their life provided it's within the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 15, 2009 21:33:51 GMT
Thank you for saying what I have been saying all along. You will therefore desist from insisting that it amounts to blaming the victim for the attack to expect women to take exactly the same measure of caution against sexual assault as they and men do against all others, and stop demanding that in that respect only, women should lead a charmed life protected because of their sex regardless of what they choose to do where and with whom free from any responsibility for protecting themselves. Just like men and just as they do in all other circumstances and women without a sexist chip on their shoulder do in potentially sexual situations as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on May 15, 2009 22:04:25 GMT
Im getting bored with this thread - fascinating as it maybe. Any chance of reaching some sort of conclusion/limited status of agreement or even agree to disagreement?
Just a thought
|
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 15, 2009 23:42:38 GMT
No problems my side. No matter how much we would like to believe we can do what we like, there will always be situations where we need to be on our guard and there will always be people who take what we do as if they did it, and there will always be some to wind others up and pretend 'innocence' when they know perfectly well how the other understood their behaviour.
Everybody understand this except a few women who insist that no matter what a woman does, she cannot be considered a human being aware of sex equally as a man. She can understand that waving money around in a bad area is asking to have it stolen, but she can't accept that looking sexy in the same place is asking for sexual approach; she can understand that a man dropping his pants is making a sexual statement, but she can't that a woman lifting her skirt to show she is not wearing knickers is equal making the same statement.
Though she may imagine she is protecting the poor feeble helpless female victim from the Mighty Male Monster of 'feminist' fantasy wish-list, she is actually returning to command the woman who really does lift her skirt or get in a car in the hopes of getting sex that women don't do that so she is either too sexless stupid to know what she is doing, or a whore-victim of The Patriarchy 'conditioning' her to look for sex equally as a man because women don't behave like that.
I do not know why Anglophone women feel this strange dissociation of sex from everything else. I've never met any in real life who do, it's a purely Internet phenomenon, maybe because only freaks go on the Internet, more likely because lack of spoken tone and body language mean that the Internet canonly interpret like archeologists classing anything they don't understand as religious item.
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on May 15, 2009 23:47:15 GMT
Ok, last word on the subject went to Piffle. Hopefully that's the last Stub Crouch will have to hear about any of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 19, 2009 15:18:09 GMT
Ok, last word on the subject went to Piffle. Hopefully that's the last Stub Crouch will have to hear about any of this. You must be joking! |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on May 20, 2009 4:05:32 GMT
There's a simple thing that feminists can't accept: both sexes are equal. Riot has twisted her argument round and round from implying that it is outrageous to suggest that women should protect themselves like men to saying that because more men are victims, men should protect themselves as much as women. I'm inclined to agree with that. Women are not the feeble victims of over-riding male domination that feminists pretend.
What makes the difference is the feminist pretence that expecting a woman to take care for herself, as Riot admits men do not enough, makes her responsible for any assault on her while the same does not apply to men. I do not know where feminsits get this idea that irresponsibility in self-protection is responsibility for attack in women, but not in men.
I've spent my time arguing that the sexes are entirely equal. As usual, the feminists want to apply different (traditional feeble female) rules to women and to make out that men are in some way mentally inferior for not behaving as cautiously as the women they say are blamed for being victims by being expected to behave cautiously!
Why can't feminists tell the difference between responsibility for self-protection and responsibility for committing an assault when women are concerned? They can when men are, women who believe in sexual equality can, only silly little girls expecting to lead a charmed life of privilege and the feminists who never maturesd out of it and want 1930s Hollywood chivalric kitsch back can't handle equality of the sexes.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on May 20, 2009 7:20:46 GMT
Actually, Piffle, without getting involved in your "feminist" argument, I myself have been roundly abused on certain boards for suggesting that women need to at least look at the way they way they act and dress, because I happen to believe that everyone's behaviour does send out signals which can be misinterpreted.
I now know (because I have been told, in colourful language) that in doing so I am paving the way for compulsory wearing of burqas and female curfews, and setting the agenda for a rapists' charter. So I stay out of these converations.
Some years ago I was interested to read of programmes in youth offenders' instutitions targetting body landguage, and teaching the male inmates how to to towards police officers to avoid conflict leading to arrest. I'm sure that such training could be hugely useful in all kinds of areas, to men and women
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 20, 2009 8:09:54 GMT
Housesparrow, I am afraid that getting involved in Piffle's "feminist" argument is precisely what you are doing.
I don't remember the occasion you speak of when you were roundly abused simply for suggesting that women need to at least look at the way they way they act and dress. These accusations without evidence or attribution feed into Piffle's anti-feminist paranoia and prevent any kind of reasoned discussion on the fraught question of the 'meaning' of the signals that can be given out by women - and a reasoned discussion is exactly what is needed here.
It is precisely because of the complexities that obtain in this area that we need a nuanced argument here - what we absolutely do not need is Piffle weighing in with one (or several) of his vile anti-feminist diatribes.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on May 20, 2009 10:59:46 GMT
Jean, it was the reason |I left the cakeboard! I may not have expressed my views clearly, but that is what I was trying to say.
Fortunately others were around on the old BBC WH board who said it better than I - but more than once once such opinions have been greeted with the response that this was the first step to restrictions on dress, a rapists' charter etc.
(though not colourfully, or they would have been modded).
Where I do fall out with Piffle is in saying that all feminists hold such views. They, like yourself, are mainly reasonable people with reasonable opinions expressed reasonably! Message boards attract extremists, do not lump all feminists togather, Piffle!
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 20, 2009 17:26:47 GMT
1. I thought Patrick had politely suggested an end to this pointless debate? You don't want to see his non-fluffy side.
2. Piffle, I've twisted nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 20, 2009 22:54:07 GMT
Jean, it was the reason I left the cakeboard... I was afraid it might have been there but I don't remember exactly how the discussion went. I remember it coming up on the Beeb as well, and I remember how fiercely symi01 would insist that being raped was no big deal and probably less traumatic than a non-sexual violent assault (though she'd never been raped, of course). The problem is that there are a huge range of possible meanings in this area that a woman (especially) has to be aware of - it's relatively simple to suggest that one doesn't go around half-naked in a red light area, but there are grey areas that simply don't exist when we're talking about not leaving your house unlocked or valuables visible in your car (though even there I would resist any suggestion that I am being foolhardy if I do not remove myself to a gated community). I may decide that I had better exercise caution when walking alone late at night, but at the same time I may wish to campaign for the right to walk alone, unmolested. I don't see any hypocrisy or inconsistency in that. |
|
A.P.P.S
S C 
