Violence against women

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Violence against women

Post by Deacon » Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:45 pm

Violence is rarely a good thing no matter who's being targeted or why. Unfortunately, physical violence is the only sort people tend to care about these days (any other sort is very difficult to identify and prosecute anyway). That said, what exactly is the point of the Violence Against Women Act? As far as Wikipedia can tell me, all it did is add on a new multi-billion-dollar federal bureaucracy within the existing DOJ, which isn't supposed to have the authority to deal with local crimes in the first place. As is the rule with government bureaucracies, it not only didn't go away when it was supposed to but was engorged further, now covering other groups like men who are gay and provides free visas for any illegals who claim their boyfriend hit them (presumably of either sex).

Other than pandering to people whose minds are as soft as their hearts, what is the point of this whole thing? Should it actually exist? Does the federal government even have the authority to do anything other than borrow more imaginary money to fund its pointless existence? The Senate has approved feeding the monster, but Democrats are crying crocodile tears of frustration at the idea of that the House may not follow suit. If they do join in after all, then Democrats get the needless expansion of federal government size and power they want and can burst into a "victory" dance while grabbing their crotches at the Republicans, while if it never makes it out of the House, they can say Republicans are in favor of violence against women, and this is just another example of how wildly extreme and out of touch Republicans are, because only very old white males are anything other than Democrats.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Rorschach
The Immoral Immortal
Posts: 17734
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:35 am
Gender: Male
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Violence against women

Post by Rorschach » Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:01 am

So there's no increase in jail time, improvement of prosecution rates, facilitation of reporting, increase in support or anything? That does seem a bit bizarre. But quite like a government to say, "Here's something clearly any decent-minded human being is already against. Well, look! We're against it too!"

My own beef is the aggressive anti-this and -that campaigns that I have to suffer through. All this 'Men! Stop hitting women!' nonsense. 'Don't rape!' I find it insulting and it distracts from the real problem. Anyway, as if some piece of shit wife-beater or sex-case is going to have an epiphany looking at the poster on a bus stop.
To Let

User avatar
BtEO
Redshirt
Posts: 4798
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:28 pm
Location: England

Re: Violence against women

Post by BtEO » Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:37 pm

(Not-so)fun fact: The majority of convicted rapists don't (or didn't initially) consider themselves rapists; rape is men hiding in bushes or dark alleys to pounce on unsuspecting women — they didn't do that. For them, something their victim did, wore, said, they felt constituted consent despite the jury not seeing it that way.

"Don't rape" is aiming at those people. It's an antidote to telling women to not wear revealing clothing, or drink to much, or walk around without an escort, or do any of those things men do all the time without a second thought. Saying don't wear a short skirt is the same as saying let someone else who didn't heed that advice get raped — can that possibly be a better approach than making it clear that such dress does not mean they're "up for it"?

I don't know enough about the VAWA to specifically comment on its merits or otherwise right now.

User avatar
Rorschach
The Immoral Immortal
Posts: 17734
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:35 am
Gender: Male
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Violence against women

Post by Rorschach » Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:15 pm

BtEO wrote:(Not-so)fun fact: The majority of convicted rapists don't (or didn't initially) consider themselves rapists
If this is true then
"Don't rape" is aiming at those people.

doesn't seem as if it would work.
or do any of those things men do all the time without a second thought.

Some men. Which is the very nature of my complaint.
To Let

User avatar
BtEO
Redshirt
Posts: 4798
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:28 pm
Location: England

Re: Violence against women

Post by BtEO » Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:34 pm

Rorschach wrote:
BtEO wrote:or do any of those things men do all the time without a second thought.

Some men. Which is the very nature of my complaint.
I think you misunderstood that part. I was saying that men generally aren't expected to dress "modestly" to prevent sexual assault, watch their drink intake lest they are led to a course of action they would not have taken sober, or walk around in groups so as to deter potential attackers. If a man is attacked there's rarely an assumption that they did something to provoke or deserve their fate, women have to be impeccable[1] to stand a chance of avoiding such accusations.
Rorschach wrote:
BtEO wrote:(Not-so)fun fact: The majority of convicted rapists don't (or didn't initially) consider themselves rapists
If this is true then
"Don't rape" is aiming at those people.

doesn't seem as if it would work.
True, "don't rape" is only part of the message. It needs to be made clear that rape is not only stranger danger, it's involving anyone in a sexual act they have not or could not consent to; presumed consent is not enough. I'm not sure how well that's getting across though, since it largely seems to come from feminist circles — and everyone knows they're all stuck-up man-hating bitches, right… right?
[1] An impossibility, avoiding many of the actions said to provoke will lead others to declare that she just needs a good sorting out to remove the imagined stick up her arse

User avatar
Rorschach
The Immoral Immortal
Posts: 17734
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:35 am
Gender: Male
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Violence against women

Post by Rorschach » Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:42 pm

You're asking the wrong man. I think 'feminist' is a ridiculous tag. I'd much rather 'decent human being' was applied. That way, the entry requirements would be much less severe.

Anyway, this is getting away from my point which had nothing to do with the circumstances behind rape but rather people telling me not to do it. Stick up a giant billboard in a black neighbourhood saying 'Don't commit crime' and see how long it lasts.
To Let

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: Violence against women

Post by Deacon » Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:45 pm

HA! That would be pretty funny...
BtEO wrote:presumed consent is not enough.
Please fill out this form in triplicate. Sign here... OK, now initial here and here.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
BtEO
Redshirt
Posts: 4798
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:28 pm
Location: England

Re: Violence against women

Post by BtEO » Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:05 pm

Deacon wrote:
BtEO wrote:presumed consent is not enough.
Please fill out this form in triplicate. Sign here... OK, now initial here and here.
I hope you know damned well what I mean. Some people's brains actually work such that a short skirt or a low-cut top is consent, dancing with someone in a club is consent, having had consensual sex on previous occasions is consent; saying no or resisting in any way is just 'playing games' — not explicit revocation of consent that never really existed in the first place.
Rorschach wrote:You're asking the wrong man. I think 'feminist' is a ridiculous tag. I'd much rather 'decent human being' was applied. That way, the entry requirements would be much less severe.
I've seen talk along those lines and I don't wholly disagree. But the fact remains that these things still tend to disproportionately affect females, so for many the tag remains relevant.[1] The biggest barrier to following any sort of feminist discourse is the volume of terms and definitions not often seen outside of that realm, every time I think I can follow it all some new word seems to start cropping up

[hr][/hr][1] It would also be prudent to note that feminism is not some homogeneous group with identical goals and schemes for achieving them. There are vast areas of disagreement in pretty much all topics — you can even find many feminists who would happily by their own admission fit some or all of the common negative stereotypes.

They tend to hate trans people though, so I couldn't give a shit what they think. :P

User avatar
Vektor T. Gecko
Redshirt
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 8:43 am
Gender: Male
Location: Ontario

Re: Violence against women

Post by Vektor T. Gecko » Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:54 am

FWIW, there's been a campaign in parts of Canada that focuses on exactly this demographic, the "rapists who don't think they are because they're not pouncing on girls in an alley" guys.

http://www.crimepreventionottawa.ca/en/ ... e-that-guy

From what I hear, it's actually been fairly effective. 10% is not insignificant, especially for something as low-tech and affordable as an ad campaign.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... le1359241/
If all else fails, use fire.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Violence against women

Post by Deacon » Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:00 am

So...VAWA, anyone?
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Rorschach
The Immoral Immortal
Posts: 17734
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:35 am
Gender: Male
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Violence against women

Post by Rorschach » Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:14 am

Fair enough. Moved it over here, should anyone be interested.
To Let

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Violence against women

Post by collegestudent22 » Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:18 pm

BtEO wrote:men generally aren't expected to [...] watch their drink intake lest they are led to a course of action they would not have taken sober
That is the very opposite of true. It's just that the man won't be looked down upon for being a victim - he will be accused of being a rapist. The way our society treats action under the influence is very hypocritical and inconsistent.

As for VAWA, I think it strengthens a dangerous social precedent that already exists to some degree. Specifically, the idea that women are always victims and men always perpetrators. (In college, I was told it was literally impossible for a man to be raped by a woman. Because clearly, all men are always up for sex with any woman who crosses their path or something.) Which is dangerous because it is so false.

Think about it. What is the common response? A man beating a woman in public is going to be rightly vilified and the cops will be called. But if you reverse the roles... how many people just assume he was cheating or something? How many people actually recognized that the Tiger Woods case involved a man being abused? How many times do the cops simply ignore the abuse until it leads to serious harm, or even death?
WebMD - Help for Battered Men wrote:More than 830,000 men fall victim to domestic violence every year, which means every 37.8 seconds, somewhere in America a man is battered, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey.
How about we stop with the "Violence Against Women Act" and recognize that women aren't the only victims? People are victims, and it is all of them that we should be concerned about.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44205
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: Violence against women

Post by Deacon » Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:05 pm

You're right, of course, but who would ever admit to such a thing? In our culture, no man would admit to being pressured to engage in sexual conduct against his will (date rape), and those people who claim that if you're drunk or high you're incapable of giving consent will point the finger at the drunk dude at the party rather than the drunk chick who are together messing up someone's bed upstairs. Hands on belt buckle are rebuffed, and then a giant scene is made along the lines of "WHAT ARE YOU, A FAGGOT?" has never occurred, I'm sure.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

ampersand
Redshirt
Posts: 7404
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:43 pm
Real Name: Andrew Kunz
Gender: Male
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Violence against women

Post by ampersand » Mon Apr 01, 2013 8:25 pm

What's new in this whole discussion is media reaction to highly publicized rape cases. I think there was a case in Steubenville involving white high school football players found guilty of raping one girl and posting the pics on the phone. There was a very nasty backlash over reaction from media outlets either lamenting the lost opportunities the boys will have after raping the girl or skeptical of the girl's claims of rape, even after the verdict was to her.

So do you think media coverage of highly publicized rape cases or the general media attitude of rape is faulty or does that just mirror the societal perspective of rape: terrible thing, but not terrible enough to merit that something significant needs to be done?

User avatar
BtEO
Redshirt
Posts: 4798
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 2:28 pm
Location: England

Re: Violence against women

Post by BtEO » Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:08 pm

collegestudent22 wrote:As for VAWA, I think it strengthens a dangerous social precedent that already exists to some degree. Specifically, the idea that women are always victims and men always perpetrators. (In college, I was told it was literally impossible for a man to be raped by a woman. Because clearly, all men are always up for sex with any woman who crosses their path or something.) Which is dangerous because it is so false.
Yes, victim blaming happens to victims of both genders. And it is absolutely right that we should seek to tackle this idea too. But sexual assault does affect women disproportionately. Women on the whole seem to still be growing up with a better sense of what constitutes consent and where the default boundaries should be than men; not all women, and not all men, but the ratio is heavily skewed.

Having looked a bit more as VAWA I'm not convinced it's the right approach. Some of the measures providing support to victims seem good. Often abusers seek to remove any power from their victims — leaving them feeling totally dependent on the abusers; I've seen it happen to friends of mine, smart friends you wouldn't think would be affected. So support structures in place to help victims leave their abusers are in my book a good thing. The rest of the act seems to focus on tougher penalties however, and we all know how well that works: after all no-one commits murder any more for fear they face the death penalty themselves…

What's needed is far more education, at all levels of society, that men do not have power or priority over women by virtue of their gender and all the myriad ways big and small (these days it's largely an excess of small things combined[1], big thing are far easier to spot even if you're not experiencing them first hand) that this manifests. And alongside this I would love to see greater support and visibility for male victims of rape and abuse; it does no-one any favours to leave those victims to suffer in silence. But it does not have to be an either/or situation, nor should the lack of one demand the lack of the other — both are sorely needed.
[1] Timely example. Why are podium girls even a thing — and even if they choose to take employment offering a kiss on the cheek to 1st place why did Sagan think he had right of access to any part of that woman's body?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [bot], Common Crawl (Research) and 0 guests