Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Women's Reactions to Rape
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 235 (163812)
11-29-2004 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by crashfrog
11-28-2004 6:48 PM


quote:
I don't understand what any of this has to do with anything currently under discussion.
I have just explained it to you - a doctrine of oppression requires an ideoloogy that makes the victim culpable. Look around at the theists apologisong for the genoicid of Soddom and Gamorrah becuase "they deserved it" - thus god, and christians, are absolved of responsibility.
quote:
But I haven't seen it. Oh, I get it. Because you can't support your statement, I must be a liar.
You don't need to be a liar. You might merely be a misogynist.
quote:
guess you haven't actually read the thread. Almost nobody has agreed with this general case. The most strenuous objectors have been women, themselves. The purpose of this thread, in fact, was to explore exactly why the position you've erroneously described as "generally supported", in fact, isn't.
And time and again it has been explained: becuase the proposition in itself makes women culpable and is thus a rape apologetic, becuase it is useless under many of the situations, and because it implies a permanent and radical collapse of in-species communications. Please, don't leacture me on reading the thread.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-29-2004 05:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2004 6:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 11-29-2004 11:17 AM contracycle has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 227 of 235 (163874)
11-29-2004 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by crashfrog
11-28-2004 6:48 PM


Crash, how about re-stating your position. This thread is pretty long and even though I've been following it, I am confused as to what your current position is. I think others are as well.
My understanding is that you are frustrated as to why the majority of women haven't started carrying guns or had martial arts training to protect themselves from rape. Your position is that since men and society in general have not been able to stop rape, then women need to take an offensive position against the possibility of rape (i.e., carrying guns). Additionally, you think most women should view every man as a potential rapist.
From what I remember, most other posters agree that women need to know how to protect themselves, but that guns are not a good option because most rapes are perpetrated by men in positions of trust. Women already are generally suspicous of every man they first meet, but given time, will eventually begin to trust. It's at that point many rapes occur.
That's my understanding so far and probably somewhat wrong, but it's hard keeping track of everyone's arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2004 6:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 11-29-2004 11:21 AM roxrkool has not replied

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


Message 228 of 235 (163887)
11-29-2004 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by contracycle
11-29-2004 5:05 AM


I have just explained it to you - a doctrine of oppression requires an ideoloogy that makes the victim culpable.
But that's not the topic of discussion.
You don't need to be a liar. You might merely be a misogynist.
Well, you might be an idiot, I guess. If name-calling is the best you have, then you're the second person in this thread I simply won't be able to communicate with.
Please, don't leacture me on reading the thread.
Then please, read it. Now you seem to have reversed your position. Which is it? Have people been agreeing with the proposition, or have they been following your tack and calling me a mysogynist who wants to blame the victim? If you had read the thread, you wouldn't be so unsure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by contracycle, posted 11-29-2004 5:05 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by contracycle, posted 11-29-2004 11:34 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 229 of 235 (163888)
11-29-2004 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by roxrkool
11-29-2004 10:43 AM


Crash, how about re-stating your position.
It's actually fairly simple. Self-defense tactics work in rape situations. So why is the idea of self-defense so roundly dismissed by the very people who could stand to benefit most?
Additionally, you think most women should view every man as a potential rapist.
You don't need to view anybody as anything to be prepared to defend yourself from an attacker. Self-defense training prepares you to respond to threats when they arise. If what you say is true, martial artists would be the most paranoid people imaginable, but quite the opposite is true. They're usually, in my experience, gregarious and outgoing, because of the confidence afforded by the knowledge they can respond to threats.
That's my understanding so far and probably somewhat wrong, but it's hard keeping track of everyone's arguments.
No, I think you've summarized it quite nicely. Well done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by roxrkool, posted 11-29-2004 10:43 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 235 (163890)
11-29-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by crashfrog
11-29-2004 11:17 AM


quote:
But that's not the topic of discussion.
It is the sub-topic you specifically requested I address; you asked me to walk you through it. I have done so, what is your problem?
quote:
Well, you might be an idiot, I guess. If name-calling is the best you have, then you're the second person in this thread I simply won't be able to communicate with.
Help help I'm being repressed!
quote:
Then please, read it. Now you seem to have reversed your position. Which is it? Have people been agreeing with the proposition, or have they been following your tack and calling me a mysogynist who wants to blame the victim? If you had read the thread, you wouldn't be so unsure.
I have read the thread, of course. You specifically asked why multiple people had suggested you were blaming the victim. I provided you with information that demonstrates that your argument accords with a socially manipulative strategy to transfer culpability to the victim in a well-understood oppressive mechanism. I have elected to treat your argument as an innocent mistake, as I allowed, as a mark of respect for your generally high level of analysis. I do not understand why you seem completely determined to reject this argument. The more you continue to reject it, and protest the innocence of your position, the more it appears that you have some other agenda.
It has been explained to you multiple times: women grow up with loving fathers and caring brothers and do not hate men from the outset. As even in the 'rape vignettes' abstract I quoted, it showed that ALL the male subjects experienced MOST arousal with consensual situations, not rape situations. Rape is socially rationalised and excused; it is not IMO an entirely authentic natural response but a result of misogynistic social programming.
quote:
It's actually fairly simple. Self-defense tactics work in rape situations. So why is the idea of self-defense so roundly dismissed by the very people who could stand to benefit most?
Because it treats the symptom, not the cause. And becuase of the easy way it beocmes a blame-game that rationalises the very crime it claims to address. I ask again: does the logic of the burka not also arise from this argument?
This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-29-2004 11:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 11-29-2004 11:17 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by crashfrog, posted 11-29-2004 2:50 PM contracycle has replied

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


Message 231 of 235 (163947)
11-29-2004 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by contracycle
11-29-2004 11:34 AM


I do not understand why you seem completely determined to reject this argument.
Well, let's put it this way. If a Nazi says that he likes coffee, does that mean that Jews have to drink tea?
It may be that my argument is superficially reminiscent of the arguments you're referring to; the arguments that are a wedge for the transfer of blame to the victim.
But that's not the purpose or thrust of my argument; and the validity of that argument is in no way related to the similarity it might bear to someone else's argument. I believe that it's a valid argument in and of itself, and that it can be advanced without shifting blame to any victims or implicating women in some kind of "failure" to prevent rape. As I've said before, it is the community of men who have failed, spectacularly. I think its ridiculous and arrogant to expect the community of women to give us another go at it.
There's an Arab proverb: "Trust God, but tie up your camel." Obviously, it's a crime and not your fault if someone walks up and steals your camel. But why would a person think that the best strategy for camel-theft-prevention is to simply hope it doesn't happen?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by contracycle, posted 11-29-2004 11:34 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by contracycle, posted 11-30-2004 10:47 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 232 of 235 (163948)
11-29-2004 2:52 PM


Maybe what it comes down to is this: Is it possible to reccommend a course of action without simultaneously condemning those who don't follow it?
I believe that you can. Apparently many here don't agree.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-29-2004 02:52 PM

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 233 of 235 (164105)
11-30-2004 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by crashfrog
11-29-2004 2:50 PM


quote:
There's an Arab proverb: "Trust God, but tie up your camel." Obviously, it's a crime and not your fault if someone walks up and steals your camel. But why would a person think that the best strategy for camel-theft-prevention is to simply hope it doesn't happen?
Thats a fair enough point. But let me suggest that yourt proposition is more akin to tlocking your camel in a shed and never riding it anywhhere. That is, the costs of your proposal in terms of the human relationships it would damage is too high.
I mean I've seen womens self defence classes specifically with this sort of ambition taught at some of office places. Its not as if it never happens. But developing a sort of universal siege mentality may well prove to be a cure that is worse than the disease by rendering so many relationships fraught with suspicion and fear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by crashfrog, posted 11-29-2004 2:50 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 11-30-2004 3:23 PM contracycle has not replied

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


Message 234 of 235 (164139)
11-30-2004 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by contracycle
11-30-2004 10:47 AM


That is, the costs of your proposal in terms of the human relationships it would damage is too high.
Based on what evidence? It's never been my experience that learning to protect yourself stimulates distrust of other people. Quite the opposite, in fact - people who can protect themselves find that they're less afraid to trust others, because they know they can handle the associated risks.
But developing a sort of universal siege mentality may well prove to be a cure that is worse than the disease by rendering so many relationships fraught with suspicion and fear.
I'm sorry but I don't accept this conclusion as self-evident, and I've seen no evidence that supports it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by contracycle, posted 11-30-2004 10:47 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Rosie Cotton
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 235 (165013)
12-03-2004 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
09-30-2004 8:00 PM


It is also because men don't get raped nearly as much as women. Why? Because
1) A female has less control over a male than a male over a female
2) The female's the one that can end up pregnant. Why would she risk that?
3) There are other reasons, but I don't know if I should say.
This message has been edited by Rosie Cotton, 12-03-2004 08:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 09-30-2004 8:00 PM crashfrog 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