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

Re: Violence against women

Post by Deacon » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:53 pm

BtEO wrote:But sexual assault does affect women disproportionately.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think it would be far more accurate to say, "A disproportionate number of reported incidents of sexual assault are reported by women." This both leaves the "affect" out of it and makes room for the fact that the vast majority of incidents that should be reported by men remain hidden.
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.
I'm not sure I followed that, honestly. Will you elaborate?
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, big thing are far easier to spot even if you're not experiencing them first hand) that this manifests.
I would challenge this assertion, just for reference. While "education" in this context tends to be code for "terribly expensive (or 'lucrative' depending on your role) attempt by the government to shape the social thought of its subjects in favor of a political aim," my real problem is that I have yet to hear anyone explain what they think the world looks like with none of your big or small ways in which men and women differ, and all the gray areas in between. I'm not sure I understand what Utopia is under this line of feminist thinking, exactly.
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 » Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:26 pm

Deacon wrote:
BtEO wrote:But sexual assault does affect women disproportionately.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think it would be far more accurate to say, "A disproportionate number of reported incidents of sexual assault are reported by women." This both leaves the "affect" out of it and makes room for the fact that the vast majority of incidents that should be reported by men remain hidden.
Fair point. Don't forget that women don't always report incidents either; If you rely purely on reported figures both are going to be lower than actual — though I would expect the difference in unreported vs. reported male rapes to be greater.
Deacon wrote:
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.
I'm not sure I followed that, honestly. Will you elaborate?
It's going back to the 'convicted rapists don't realise or accept that what they did was rape' — somewhere in their education they learnt things that are not correct. There aren't really many instances of women claiming a shirt with the top couple of buttons undone or a pair trousers just tight enough to reveal all the contours (or whatever) meant a man had to have been up for it or thinking that a man collapsing blind drunk on their sofa after a party has granted them full access to his body; given this I think its fair to suggest that some part of the way we as a society interact with young men is sending different messages than those women get, and sometimes those messages lead to sexual assault when the perpetrator should have realised their actions were not OK.
Deacon wrote:
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, big thing are far easier to spot even if you're not experiencing them first hand) that this manifests.
I would challenge this assertion, just for reference. While "education" in this context tends to be code for "terribly expensive (or 'lucrative' depending on your role) attempt by the government to shape the social thought of its subjects in favor of a political aim," my real problem is that I have yet to hear anyone explain what they think the world looks like with none of your big or small ways in which men and women differ, and all the gray areas in between. I'm not sure I understand what Utopia is under this line of feminist thinking, exactly.
I'm not sure I have an answer for that as it would be something not seen since the dawn of civilisation. I would hesitate to call it a utopia — bad people would still do bad things; but merely being born female (or black, or gay, or trans, etc…) would not leave you more likely to encounter certain types of crime, especially ones as traumatising as rape. (I'm skipping the government part — I know from experience this is an impasse when it comes to me and you. :P )

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 » Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:53 pm

BtEO wrote:It's going back to the 'convicted rapists don't realise or accept that what they did was rape' — somewhere in their education they learnt things that are not correct.
Everyone in prison is innocent. If you don't believe me, ask them. Regardless, I don't really see how you can "fix" a broader cultural problem like that. And that assumes that any significant number of these protestations are even sincere. I think your example of wearing a low cut top means a woman screaming and fighting against a man who takes her anyway and thinking it's justified isn't actually a real thing, or at least only insomuch as it falls in with the numbers of people out there with legitimate mental/social disorders. No matter how much rap you listen to or whatever the prevailing "bad influence" of the day happens to be, that's not going to be something any man that is even halfway normal in our western society thinks and acts on, and even fewer are going to be so legitimately delusional that they will honestly and sincerely say they didn't realize it was an issue.

Now, your example some young and immature, horny, drunk frat dude stumbling across a blacked out girl in one of the upstairs bedrooms at a party and taking advantage of the situation? That seems more plausible. But even in that kind of corner case, I can't see him later, sober, arguing that it was totally cool.
I think its fair to suggest that some part of the way we as a society interact with young men is sending different messages than those women get, and sometimes those messages lead to sexual assault when the perpetrator should have realised their actions were not OK.
I guess I'm pretty much calling bullshit on that guy truly not realizing his actions were not OK.
I'm not sure I have an answer for that as it would be something not seen since the dawn of civilisation. I would hesitate to call it a utopia — bad people would still do bad things; but merely being born female (or black, or gay, or trans, etc…) would not leave you more likely to encounter certain types of crime, especially ones as traumatising as rape.
What? Let me make sure I understand you correctly: you suggest that early homo sapiens social groups were paragons of social equality, wherein rape was rare and equally distributed in terms of perpetrators and victims between males and females, and outliers like gays and outsiders from other tribes weren't subject to persecution or violence? I'm honestly not sure what to make of that. Did humans even vary at all in skin color at the dawn of civilization?

That said, I can see what you're getting at in general, and while it sounds good I can't help but wonder if it's even really possible. You'd basically have to change human nature itself. We're animals, literally and metaphorically. You say that "bad people would still do bad things" in such a way that you can define universal "bad things" and that there are "bad people" with the implied inverse that there's such a thing as "good people" as well. Cultural and social judgments regarding what's "bad" can vary wildly, of course, but even then there are so many gray areas and hairs to be split. Is it "bad" for a woman to go out in public without her face covered? In some parts of the world, men may shake their heads and say, "Sometimes there are just bad women who do bad things." Is it bad to kill another human? What if they're attacking you? What if they're part of an army trying to kill your family and take your home? Some would argue it doesn't matter, some would disagree. Now extrapolate that to something as complex and nuanced as sexuality and the current murky area of what even constitutes "rape" in the first place, with the added complexity of being something that usually occurs between two flawed and individuals with their unique interpretation of events, often influenced by some substance or another. I think that's part of the problem, that it's not as black and white as you're suggesting and definitely not as much as some government bureaucracy's PSA.
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 » Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:15 pm

Deacon wrote:
BtEO wrote:It's going back to the 'convicted rapists don't realise or accept that what they did was rape' — somewhere in their education they learnt things that are not correct.
Everyone in prison is innocent. If you don't believe me, ask them.
Am I asking as a fellow inmate with whom the questioned has not established any reputation?
Deacon wrote:Now, your example some young and immature, horny, drunk frat dude stumbling across a blacked out girl in one of the upstairs bedrooms at a party and taking advantage of the situation? That seems more plausible. But even in that kind of corner case, I can't see him later, sober, arguing that it was totally cool.
And yet I believe that's pretty close to the defence the Stubenville rapists ultimately fell back on right until their conviction. That she'd been giving off signals all night and how can they possibly be blamed for misreading them?
Deacon wrote:
I'm not sure I have an answer for that as it would be something not seen since the dawn of civilisation. I would hesitate to call it a utopia — bad people would still do bad things; but merely being born female (or black, or gay, or trans, etc…) would not leave you more likely to encounter certain types of crime, especially ones as traumatising as rape.
What? Let me make sure I understand you correctly: you suggest that early homo sapiens social groups were paragons of social equality, wherein rape was rare and equally distributed in terms of perpetrators and victims between males and females, and outliers like gays and outsiders from other tribes weren't subject to persecution or violence? I'm honestly not sure what to make of that. Did humans even vary at all in skin color at the dawn of civilization?
Fuck, I knew I should have gone with dawn of man. I picked civilisation as a means of saying throughout all recorded history it's never existed. The concepts we're discussing likely wouldn't have even existed before then, and while it's highly likely women were screwed universally from the first point we resembled humans rather than any other mammal, history is spotty enough and tribes were small enough that I can't outright discount the possibility of a gender-blind tribe somewhere, at some time.
Deacon wrote:That said, I can see what you're getting at in general, and while it sounds good I can't help but wonder if it's even really possible. You'd basically have to change human nature itself. We're animals, literally and metaphorically. You say that "bad people would still do bad things" in such a way that you can define universal "bad things"
Yeah I had to simplify to "bad things" when talking about a society that doesn't exist, best I could do with my limited imagination. But I will note that most of civilisation is about out-thinking our base animal nature in order to transcend it, how much of what's changed might once have been considered irrevocable human nature?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl (Research) and 0 guests