|
Post by Vince524 on May 7, 2017 10:50:16 GMT -5
I don't disagree with what's being said.
Yes, talk to students about the dangers of drunken hook ups and communications. Affirmative consent can't legally be enforced, but it makes a lot a sense in new situations where the couples or triples don't know each other, to verbally make sure everyone is okay with what's being done.
But just as men should be taught to be careful around a girl who may be intoxicated, so should women. That's not victim blaming.
A woman should be able to get hammered, strip down naked, and fall asleep in the middle of a frat party without worrying about being raped.
A man should be able to expect a fair hearing when something is alleged.
The federal government shouldn't threaten funding of schools who don't find against the accusers.
All evidence should be considered.
A man shouldn't have to spend 30-60k in a lawsuit to clear his name, when in a small claims court, he never would be convicted.
If we have cases where colleges are finding men responsible for sexual assaults when the victim says it wasn't rape, then it's time to admit the system is broken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 10:52:18 GMT -5
To give an analogy, if you came to NYC, I would have a bunch of advice about riding the subway and not getting robbed/attacked. E.g.: get a crossbody handbag that both zips and that has a flap. Wear it cross-body with the flap against your body in front. Much harder for a pickpocket to get into than, say, a bucket bag slung over one shoulder. At night, ride in the conductor car. Go to an attended station and wait for your train near it, if possible. Do NOT fall asleep on the train or on a bench! If you pay attention to that advice, you are much less likely to be a victim of a predator looking for an easy mark.
But if you ignored my advice, did those things, and got robbed, it wouldn't mean you were asking for it. It would mean, unfortunately, that you ran into a predator. That doesn't make my advice less good.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on May 7, 2017 10:55:36 GMT -5
I don't disagree. That's kind of why I reacted the way I did about the video showing the girl laughing with her arms around two boys. The blame belongs on the attacker, always. No one deserves to be a victim, ever. But that doesn't mean not warning your kids that it's an ugly world out there sometimes, and alas, certain behavior that isn't in itself wrong could put them more at risk. The saddest part is that college parties shouldn't be like dark alleys. They should be relatively safe places to hang out. (derail) I cried for 30 minutes after reading about this yesterday. It's really, really difficult for me to attribute this to mere stupidity and/or extreme drunkenness on the part of the fraternity members. That's truly heartbreaking. I've often wondered also how many of those initiations result in things that should also be considered sexual assault on male members, yet they won't report. We really do need to do a better job with all of this.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 7, 2017 10:56:31 GMT -5
What Opty said. The millions of good men who don't rape aren't the problem. There will always be some bad actors, so "teach men not to rape" is stupid. I don't mean it's stupid to teach boys early to be respectful and mindful of consent. I mean that predators exist (and so do men - and a few women - who are not normally predatory but whose ethics are shaky enough that a few drinks can unmoor their moral inhibitions) and so you have to be mindful of hazards. This is basic common sense and applies to every situation in the world in which bad things can happen. Know the dangers and act accordingly. This is not "victim blaming." Victim blaming is telling a girl who got drunk and got raped "Well, you deserved it" (or worse, letting the rapist off because "what did she expect, getting drunk at that party"?) That's obviously terrible, and yes, it used to happen. But now we've shifted to the attitude - which you express above - that even telling girls that getting drunk at parties full of men on the prowl is maybe a bad idea is "victim blaming" because "Men should just know better." Yes, men should know better. And murders and burglars and con-men and other assorted criminals should know better too. Yet they are still out there and no number of "education campaigns" is just going to teach everyone not to do bad things. I think your attitude is dangerous. You want girls to be told that they should be perfectly safe and entitled to get drunk* in dangerous circumstances because it's the responsibility of those around them not to take advantage of them. I think this is actually causing more of both phenomena being discussed above - women getting raped, and men being accused of rape - sometimes unfairly - because where drugs and alcohol is involved and no one is taking responsibility but assuming the burden of responsibility should be entirely on someone else, ambiguous situations will happen. * Hell, even without drinking, I think a girl going to, say, a frat party full of drunken men, would be foolish not to have a back-up, at least one friend who is also not drunk and can watch out for her possibly being pushed into a hazardous situation. This is also not victim blaming, it is situational awareness which is a basic component of any self-defense class - it's the first thing we teach, because recognizing how to avoid bad situations in the first place is far more effective than learning how to kick someone in the balls once things have already started to go sideways. But according to you, this is "victim blaming" because women shouldn't need to be on guard (or, alternatively, "We already know that, we're taught that all our lives"). Except that clearly a lot of people don't know that, or at least at college, this new thing where it's wrong and victim-blamey to tell people not to do stupid things seems to be encouraging people - mostly girls - to do stupid things. I did not say "don't teach." I don't even have the heart to respond to the rest of this. You are not understanding where I am coming from, and I don't know how to explain it any better than I have already.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 10:57:08 GMT -5
I don't disagree. That's kind of why I reacted the way I did about the video showing the girl laughing with her arms around two boys. The blame belongs on the attacker, always. No one deserves to be a victim, ever. But that doesn't mean not warning your kids that it's an ugly world out there sometimes, and alas, certain behavior that isn't in itself wrong could put them more at risk. The saddest part is that college parties shouldn't be like dark alleys. They should be relatively safe places to hang out. (derail) I cried for 30 minutes after reading about this yesterday. It's really, really difficult for me to attribute this to mere stupidity and/or extreme drunkenness on the part of the fraternity members. And usually they are relatively safe places to hang out. Plenty of girls go to frat parties every year without being raped. Just as millions ride the subway every year without being robbed or attacked. But there will always be bad people. No place is completely safe. I will bet thousands have been pick-pocketed in St. Peter's, right under the nose of the pope. People get murdered in national parks. Kids get molested by teachers and scout leaders. Those should be (and usually are) safe spaces, too.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on May 7, 2017 10:59:16 GMT -5
To give an analogy, if you came to NYC, I would have a bunch of advice about riding the subway and not getting robbed/attacked. E.g.: get a crossbody handbag that both zips and that has a flap. Wear it cross-body with the flap against you body in front. Much harder for a pickpocket to get into than, say, a bucket bag slung over one shoulder. At night, ride in the conductor car. Go to an attended station and wait for your train near it, if possible. Do NOT fall asleep on the train or on a bench! If you pay attention to that advice, you are much less likely to be a victim of a predator looking for an easy mark. But if you ignored my advice, did those things, and got robbed, it wouldn't mean you were asking for it. It would mean, unfortunately, that you ran into a predator. That doesn't make my advice less good. Agreed. Yet if you gave advice on safety to a college women to avoid being a victim, you would be accused of victim blaming. www.newsweek.com/controversy-over-nail-varnish-date-rape-drug-detector-267126
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2017 11:07:10 GMT -5
To give an analogy, if you came to NYC, I would have a bunch of advice about riding the subway and not getting robbed/attacked. E.g.: get a crossbody handbag that both zips and that has a flap. Wear it cross-body with the flap against you body in front. Much harder for a pickpocket to get into than, say, a bucket bag slung over one shoulder. At night, ride in the conductor car. Go to an attended station and wait for your train near it, if possible. Do NOT fall asleep on the train or on a bench! If you pay attention to that advice, you are much less likely to be a victim of a predator looking for an easy mark. But if you ignored my advice, did those things, and got robbed, it wouldn't mean you were asking for it. It would mean, unfortunately, that you ran into a predator. That doesn't make my advice less good. Agreed. Yet if you gave advice on safety to a college women to avoid being a victim, you would be accused of victim blaming. www.newsweek.com/controversy-over-nail-varnish-date-rape-drug-detector-267126Again, I consider this part of a reaction gone wrong. I find it despicable that decades of raped girls have been blamed, silenced, and slut-shamed. That has to stop. But that doesn't mean we should stop teaching about common-sense protections against predators or ruining the lives of boys who aren't rapists. Again I understand the reactions. But I hope we settle somewhere sensible. By the way, where can I get some of that nail polish? I would totally buy it.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on May 7, 2017 11:19:45 GMT -5
The difference is that when someone is robbed, they are not partly culpable in the crime because they didn't have an alarm system. The difference is that there's no question of whether a robbery occurred or didn't, if someone doesn't have an alarm system. The difference is that store owners, children, and "people" aren't taught different things based on their gender. This doesn't really apply and is kind of logically all over the place. There is no difference in my examples (from a standpoint of logical consistency) because the actual premise is about victims and perpetrators. You are correct that the store owner is not "partly culpable in the crime because they didn't have an alarm system." It is also correct that a girl is not partly culpable for her rape because she wasn't practicing situational awareness (or because of what she was wearing, how she was acting, etc.). The overall point is that there are dangerous people out there who want to victimize other people purely because of the nature of their group affiliation, therefore members of those groups are more likely to be victims of specific crimes related to that group affiliation. Your logic falls apart even more when you say that "the difference is that store owners, children, and "people" aren't taught different things based on their gender." You're right, they're not, but that totally misses the point. Store owners are taught to be extra cautious with security because a small % of the population likes to rob stores. Children are taught to be extra cautious around strangers who want them to get in their car because a small % of the population likes to kidnap children. "People" (not sure why you put that in "") are taught to be extra cautious in high crime, high shooting areas because a small % of the population like to shoot/kill people. Just like, college girls should be extra cautious when going to stupid, drunken frat parties because a small % of the population are douchebags who think it's okay to rape people. As I said, the logically consistent point is that a specific group of people are more likely to be victimized by another specific group of people based on group affiliation. Whether those other groups I mentioned are grouped by gender for crimes that have nothing to do with gender is not the point, and frankly has nothing to do with the argument. It is neither a refutation to the argument nor is it logically applicable. Members of group A are statistically more likely to be victimized by members of group B, simply because they are members of group A (because group B specifically targets group A). That is the point. And that is why we need to encourage shop owners to be cautious with their shops, children to be cautious around strangers, citizens to be cautious in high crime areas, and college girls to be cautious around drunken douchebags. And, yes, at the same time, we should be teaching everyone not to rob people, kill people, kidnap people, or rape people. You just supported my entire argument. Yes, the goal is to get the small % of racist/authoritarian cops to stop harassing and killing black people and that is where the bulk of our efforts should be, but until that day comes that they 100% stop doing it (it probably never will), it is also wise to be honest and teach kids to exercise situational awareness. There are horrible people in the world and some of them act horribly in specific situations toward members of specific groups. That will likely never change. So, we should attack these problems from both sides in order to minimized victimization and suffering as much as possible. That statement somewhat contradicts what you said earlier: Yes, you discussed "societal perceptions," but you specifically said that you don't feel that we should be promoting talking to girls about this situation, which is a de facto statement that we shouldn't encourage "teaching" them about how to be cautious in these situations. I don't feel that the narrative should be 100% talking to the girls, just like I don't feel that the discussion should be 100% focused on the boys. We need to have open, honest discussions with both. To advocate for only one side is dangerous. You really need to grow past this consistent habit of passive-aggressively insulting/attacking people who disagree with you. You do this a lot and it has been a tactic of yours for as long as I've encountered you as a poster. If you can't successfully defend your positions with cogent, rational arguments, and you instead feel it is better to consistently make immature ad hominems against the people you're debating with, then perhaps you shouldn't be engaging in discussions like these.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on May 7, 2017 11:54:23 GMT -5
I did not say "don't teach." I don't even have the heart to respond to the rest of this. You are not understanding where I am coming from, and I don't know how to explain it any better than I have already. I understand you perfectly well. No, you're not literally saying "Don't teach girls to watch out for themselves." Except you kind of are - because the focus should be on teaching boys not to rape. Because it shouldn't be their responsibility not to get raped. Because parties should be a safe space. Because it's victim blaming. Because it's gender-based and potential victims in analogous situations don't get told the same thing (except... they do). And all of that amounts to the fact that anyone, whether an individual or a well-meaning police department or college administrator, who tries to advocate common-sense "How to avoid potentially finding yourself in a bad situation" advice to incoming college freshmen will get a face-full of "VICTIM BLAMING!" backlash. Your comparison to advice given to young black men is apt. Yes, it's sad and awful that black kids have to specifically be taught to be extra-wary around police, and we would like to change that. But it's not racist or victim-blaming to teach black kids to be extra-wary around police. Because hating the circumstances that make that necessary does not stop making that necessary. I get it that if someone is only telling girls to watch their drinks, only telling black men not to make sudden movements around cops, but doesn't seem particularly concerned about telling guys that drunk girls should be off-limits, or criticizing police departments that brush aside complaints about black people being shot, then you can reasonably be suspicious of that person's motives. But it's bad faith to assume that to be the case, particularly with posters here, who have criticized predatory men and deficient police departments plenty.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on May 7, 2017 13:22:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 7, 2017 13:27:46 GMT -5
I did not say "don't teach." I don't even have the heart to respond to the rest of this. You are not understanding where I am coming from, and I don't know how to explain it any better than I have already. I understand you perfectly well. No, you're not literally saying "Don't teach girls to watch out for themselves." Except you kind of are - because the focus should be on teaching boys not to rape. Because it shouldn't be their responsibility not to get raped. Because parties should be a safe space. Because it's victim blaming. Because it's gender-based and potential victims in analogous situations don't get told the same thing (except... they do). And all of that amounts to the fact that anyone, whether an individual or a well-meaning police department or college administrator, who tries to advocate common-sense "How to avoid potentially finding yourself in a bad situation" advice to incoming college freshmen will get a face-full of "VICTIM BLAMING!" backlash. Your comparison to advice given to young black men is apt. Yes, it's sad and awful that black kids have to specifically be taught to be extra-wary around police, and we would like to change that. But it's not racist or victim-blaming to teach black kids to be extra-wary around police. Because hating the circumstances that make that necessary does not stop making that necessary. I get it that if someone is only telling girls to watch their drinks, only telling black men not to make sudden movements around cops, but doesn't seem particularly concerned about telling guys that drunk girls should be off-limits, or criticizing police departments that brush aside complaints about black people being shot, then you can reasonably be suspicious of that person's motives. But it's bad faith to assume that to be the case, particularly with posters here, who have criticized predatory men and deficient police departments plenty. Yes, the focus should be on teaching people not to rape. I'll try one more time. (And btw, I acknowledge that when I said "if that's too difficult to comprehend," I erred. Truthfully I did not mean it in a snarky way (this time), but it was badly stated. What I meant was that there is nuance that a lot of people don't seem to comprehend. And I am obviously terrible at articulating it.) First and most importantly, the sort of rape I am talking about is not the "obvious" type. The victim is not passed out behind a dumpster. The victim has not expressly, emphatically said "NO." The victim isn't fighting off the perpetrator. Yes, there will always be perpetrators in those regards. I honestly have virtually no hope that someone who can rape an unconscious person is capable of being taught. Second, "focus" is the key thing. I got the impression from Amadan's post, the one I responded to, that we should continue to teach women how not to get raped in at least the same proportion that we teach men not to rape. My objection to a social "policy" of teaching women how to not get raped is that it sounds like the "solution" to the rape problem is for women to be more cautious. To me, it is not very far removed from back in the old days where a woman shouldn't have her breasts hanging out because it sends a "message" to the rapists. But again (ad nauseum) this is not to say that women shouldn't be cautious. I don't think sometimes people realize just how cautious most women are. We HAVE been taught, and in some cases, learned the hard way. Young people, yeah, some of them are dumb enough to think "it won't happen to me," "I can trust these guys," whatever. But that doesn't mean they haven't been taught. Like NYCers who know what purses to use, what routes to take, etc., women generally know what the dangers are. The focus should be on what constitutes rape, and how it is just as bad as the prevailing understanding of rape. My saying we need to "teach men not to rape" was too shorthand, so I'm sorry for the ambiguity. Ime, a lot of people don't think it's rape when it is. Finally, just a thought: 20% of people aren't mugged. 20% of children aren't kidnapped. 20% of stores aren't robbed. Women have been taught to be careful for decades, and yet one in five women are raped. I don't think even "half" of the problem is that women need to be taught to be more careful.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on May 7, 2017 13:52:39 GMT -5
if I'm reading you correctly, I do agree that teaching kids that when you have sex with a person who doesn't object because she's barely able to understand what's happening it's rape. It's also good to teach people that if you're drunk, and/or high, and engage in sex, it's very easy for the events to become foggy. For him to honestly feel that she was a willing participant because she took her clothes off, she was engaged it it, she was on top. Yet imagine how it feels for someone to wake up and realize they have no memory of the night before. Legally, as I understand it, a person can only be held liable for rape if a reasonable person should have known the accuser was intoxicated, but that won't stop a person from accusing, and from full heartily believing it was rape. Navigating these things when recollections are clouded by the haze of alcohol and/or drugs becomes very difficult. In the Occidental case, I've stated that I believe the girl was probably very upset with what happened, and it didn't help that a professor convinced her it was rape. www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/05/good-grades-good-home-gets-college-student-profiledas-rapist-claims-lawsuit.htmlIf Occidental wants to have a policy where you can get kicked out of school for sex with someone who in intoxicated, how is it they only kicked out the man when the man was completely blacked out. Or in the case of the Amherst expulsion, they found it credible that John Doe was blacked out, yet his accuser was only described as tipsy. He was expelled. reason.com/blog/2017/02/28/student-expelled-for-rape-says-amherst-dAmherst also wouldn't reconsider their decision when the John Doe hired and investigator who found text messages that showed she had misled the college, and that backed up that John Doe was the one too drunk.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on May 7, 2017 13:56:18 GMT -5
First and most importantly, the sort of rape I am talking about is not the "obvious" type. The victim is not passed out behind a dumpster. The victim has not expressly, emphatically said "NO." The victim isn't fighting off the perpetrator. Yes, there will always be perpetrators in those regards. I honestly have virtually no hope that someone who can rape an unconscious person is capable of being taught. Do you really think we (or I) don't understand that we are not talking about the Stalking Rapist Who Drags You Into the Bushes here? No one disagrees that boys should be taught not to rape. And that "don't rape" is more than just "don't stick your dick into an unconscious woman" but also everything we've talked about surrounding consent and being mindful of impairment, etc. Well, yes, I do. I think both women and men should be taught. Let's say hypothetically I have a son and a daughter. Do you suggest I spend 90% of my time teaching my son not to be a rapist, and 10% of my time giving my daughter advice on how not to get raped? I think I would more likely be about equally concerned for both of them and thus would spend about equal time giving them advice on how not to get into bad situations. I understand you are looking at it more from a societal perspective, and maybe you'd like to see PSAs and popular media spending more time talking about what's unacceptable behavior from men and less time warning women about dangers. But the fact that both halves of the population need to be taught things, albeit different things, means they're both going to hear it about equally. You read that as "Therefore society thinks the burden is just as much on women when it should be mostly on men." I don't think that's the message. The reality is that it's mostly women who are at risk. So making sure we talk more to men about how not to rape than we do to women about how not to get raped... is not necessarily going to result in less rape. Look, I have mentioned the self defense classes I help teach before. We never teach that self defense is a "solution" to rape. Obviously, by the time you are having to physically defend yourself from an assailant, a whole lot of things have gone wrong, from the assailant's upbringing to whatever put you in this particular situation. Teaching women what to do in a worst case scenario in no way implies that this should be their responsibility, or that I think we should spend more resources as a society teaching women martial arts than we do trying to raise well-balanced people. My objection to your objection is that, as I said, we wind up in this hyperreactive environment where even the simple suggestion that it's a good idea for women to learn self defense can get you labeled a victim blamer or accused of thinking it's women's responsibility not to get raped. I know this will seem nitpicky, but since we're talking about precision and truthiness here - one in five women are not raped. That particular "one in five" study aside, the actual incidence of rape is hard to be sure of but there are no credible statistics showing it's anywhere near that high. Before you say it, I will of course agree that any incidence is too high, but don't throw out bogus, discredited figures like that and then complain that you're being misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 7, 2017 14:15:57 GMT -5
I think it's much more likely, your own hypothetical parenting aside, that parents spend 90% of their efforts teaching their daughters to be safe, and 10% of their efforts teaching their boys what consent means. Historically, for sure, but hopefully the tide is turning. That said, I can't say how many times I've heard, "Johnny is nice boy, he would never do that" sort of crap. Well, no, he probably won't if you teach him.
1 in 5, 1 in 6, 1 in 7.... yeah, it's pretty nitpicky, since even the lowest percentages are still way beyond the likelihood of people getting mugged, kidnapped, or stolen from, which was my point.
I'm sorry you get labelled a victim-blamer. I didn't do that. I seem to be the stand-in for everyone who has ever insulted your self-defense classes. I'm not doing that. I would take a self-defense class in a heartbeat if I felt at this stage in my life I was under threat. I expressed an opinion on what we as a society should be focused on. You keep bringing up these allegations from other people who are not me.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on May 7, 2017 14:21:13 GMT -5
I'm sorry you get labelled a victim-blamer. I didn't do that. I seem to be the stand-in for everyone who has ever insulted your self-defense classes. I'm not doing that. I would take a self-defense class in a heartbeat if I felt at this stage in my life I was under threat. I expressed an opinion on what we as a society should be focused on. You keep bringing up these allegations from other people who are not me. Well, so do you, as you keep bringing up arguments no one here has made. It's not that I am sensitive about self-defense classes being insulted - the problem is that nowadays, I probably wouldn't even suggest them unless someone expressed interest because, y'know, victim blaming. And that's where we're going - don't tell people who are just arriving at college and out from under adult supervision for the first time "Yes, I know you want to go out and party and have fun, but here are some things you should watch out for --" Because victim blaming.
|
|