that rape must be considered a normal part of our social environment and women should, alone, simply prepare for the inevitability.
Not so. But rape is a reality, for one in three women. Clearly, our efforts to "remove it from the environment" have been manifest failures. For the practical future, women need to be prepared to resist rape. It's sad but true. I mean, we shouldn't stop trying to get men to stop raping women, but we can do that and arm women at the same time, you see. I don't know why everybody thinks I'm proposing shifting the responsibility to women. What I'm trying to do is figure out a way for women not to be harmed by our manifest failure to eliminate rape from the environment.
You're basically saying "women, you're on your own, fight back or suffer."
No, I'm basically saying "everything we've tried so far has failed. Women, there's a realistic posibility that you will be raped, because of our failure to put a stop to it, and it would be best if you were prepared for that." Women can agree or disagree; arm themselves or not. I started this thread to find out why, so far, they've been choosing not to when the evidence seems to suggest that they should.
quote:I started this thread to find out why, so far, they've been choosing not to when the evidence seems to suggest that they should.
Perhaps it's a cultural thing. It's not "ladylike" to go to self-defense classes and learn the best way to break a man's leg in three places.
I think I've said it before, but it's a bit like not telling people about vaccines in the hope that they'll never get sick. It's that kind of preconceived notion that the modern world should do away with as soon as possible.
It's quite disingeuous of you to misrepresent my position by suggesting that I view "distrust of men" as a solution in itself.
Again, extrapolation on your part. I have always listed all 3 as SEPARATE, in and of themselves, AND that you suggest taken together to be a further solution for the problem. However, I do not think that "distrust of men" OR carrying a gun is, or should be, considered a PART OF any solution.
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?
I went to the report and did not find evidence to support carrying a gun (they mention the perp having a gun, etc). We are dealing with this: 1)Only 2% of rapists are convicted and imprisoned. (US Senate Judiciary Committee 1993)
I admit this is an old statistic, but are you willing to continue stating that "we are already holding the offenders accountable"...so check that off of the to-do list?
2)In a 1999 longitudinal study of 3,000 women, researchers found women who had been victimized before were seven times more likely to be raped again. (Acierno, Resnick, Kilpatrick, Saunders and Best, Jnl. of Anxiety Disorders 13, 6.)
If this isn't a case for educating women on self-image and their role NOT distrust of men, I don't know what the hell is!
3)In a survey of college males who committed rape, 84% said what they did was definitely not rape. (Warshaw, Robin 1994 "I Never Called It Rape") 4)A study of 477 male students, mostly 1st and 2nd year students, found 56% reported instances of non-assaultive coercion to obtain sex. Examples included: threatening to end a relationship; falsely professing love; telling lies to render her more sexually receptive. (Boeringer 1996, Violence Against Women:5)
So, is it really true that we should promote further miscommunication between the sexes through distrust OR is aggressive education a better option(supported by both MEN and women)? I obviously do not agree with suggestions of carrying guns...which could prove MORE dangerous to everyone involved. The following is a quote from an organization, there are many, that answers 'What can men do to help?'...THIS is what I advocate in addition to every definition of self-defense (except guns):
By becoming involved. By speaking up when you hear other males stereotype women or make sexist and/or homophobic jokes and put-downs. By not conforming to the "traditional" male role as aggressor. By supporting other males who are challenging gender stereotypes. By examining your own attitudes. By supporting women in their efforts to gain equality. By refusing to support sexist media. By educating yourself through the many workshops, readings, films and events organized on campus. By talking with younger boys about these issues and encouraging their development away from control and aggression.
If you look at history, attitudes take a LONG time to change.
Yes, especially when you say the following:
I wonder how you think in what way men are supposed to change their attitude...
1) Refer to what I posted to Crashfrog 2) Do you really think men have done everything they can to address this problem?
Disclaimer: I will be the first to admit I do not think this is strictly a guy's attitude problem....it is a woman's attitude problem as well. Which is why aggressive re-education for the "post neanderthal" stage that I think we've achieved is important and furthering distrust is not conducive.
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.
Really? 'Et tu Brutus' mean anything to you? Guys have to worry just as much as women about not being ready for betrayal. What a naive and idiotic example for you to make. In terms of distrust we are ultimately talking about betrayal!! NO ONE, man or woman, is EVER prepared for betrayal...your friend could still whack you, does not matter if you have training or not. Why? Because at some minimal level there is a trust.
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.
LOL, trouble is you better reverse that order since statistics say you are more likely to be raped by daddy or boyfriend than a stranger...so then you advocate trust in a stranger over your family? Your thread is going to shit Crashfrog.
Your problem is what I stated from the beginning...unrealistic, putting the issues in the laps of women, and suggesting that there is nothing further that men can do.
For the record carrying a sword in history had more to do with protecting oneself from STRANGERS than friends, your extrapolation for the why is ridiculous at best.
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.
I was beginning to think I was the only one that was seeing it this way, and then being accused of being sexist.
Maybe you don't like the fact that I point out that you are ignorant by infering that readiness to fight is related to trust or mistrust. The two are in no way related, and the specific point Schraf brought up was MISTRUST...if you call someone a friend you have a certain level of trust, and can therefore be betrayed...this is not a misrepresentation. As Schraf's post to what you said was equally incredulous to your claims, maybe YOU need to re-evaluate your thinking on the subject.
Geez, don't cry now. Step up and own it! Develop your ideas a bit more if you think I am emphasizing the wrong point. Expound, elaborate....did you think that when you brought up an issue that has ties to society, evolution, and religion that this was going to be a 3 point suggestion by you and everyone would applaud?....what you didn't like the stats I posted? How about me providing an exact MISREPRESENTATION by you concerning the level of accountability?
No offense, but no. You don't seem to be willing to approach this dispassionately, and I'm not interested in fighting through your enthusiasm (to use the best possible word) to try to get you to see it my way, or to reach a consensus you don't seem to be interested in reaching.
I'm sorry, I truly am, but fruitful discussion simply isn't going to be possible between us on this subject, and I believe that when that's the case, the mature thing to do is admit it.
Just as I thought, when someone has a more intelligent, comprehensive view than your own, you cry wolf. I have tried to stick to the facts. Every time you have wanted clarification I have given it to you.
You have support for ONE suggestion you made: the physical aspect of self-defense. But then many women already do this, so your "nothing" comment was incorrect.
On the other hand, you have ignored my point about stricter punishment, educating men about women, and the reverse as well...you seem to be stuck on guns,physical contact, and mistrust.....mmm gotta love the breeding ground of that for mutual respect between the sexes.
You've brought nothing new OR insightful to the table and have resisted any other ideas that would include men as part of the solution. As long as you think this way it negates your attempt to appear open-minded. Whatever, if you can't address my points then fine...it just means you concede to me.
Tagless, you are rediculous in your claim that we should all just run from eachother in distrust. Then you bash on the ability for a woman to defend herself like it's a bad thing. Seriously start making sense or just leave this forum....afterall, you don't know if you can TRUST our information.
Tagless- "NO ONE, man or woman, is EVER prepared for betrayal"
And your solution is what? To figure a way to make betrayal nonexistant. Your living in a fantasy.