Feminism & Rape Culture 2014: My Post is Up Here Guys

[The Federation]

Ok, we do realize there is a BIG difference between someone ACCIDENTALLY running you over and someone PURPOSEFULLY harrasing you? The two things are not the same.

The intent and scenario are different, but the precautionary measures are similar in need. In both you are making yourself less of a target. Whether there is intent or not, it doesn't matter. We know that both are affected by the personal choice to take preventative measures.

 

[Peter Quill]

The intent and scenario are different, but the precautionary measures are similar in need. In both you are making yourself less of a target. Whether there is intent or not, it doesn't matter. We know that both are affected by the personal choice to take preventative measures.

Right thanks for telling me and other victims of harassment (which I did not deserve at all btw I did not make myself a target at all - He was just a pure bonified crazy) that our experiences of people going around with the purpose to harass us is the same as a common car accident. Really, good job. I don't understand how you can make this comparison at all. You can't tell people that they should have a precautionary need for this sort of thing - simply because there's a personal accountability of the harasser that they should be accounted for.

 

[The Federation]

Right thanks for telling me and other victims of harassment (which I did not deserve at all btw I did not make myself a target at all - He was just a pure bonified crazy) that our experiences of people going around with the purpose to harass us is the same as a common car accident. Really, good job. I don't understand how you can make this comparison at all. You can't tell people that they should have a precautionary need for this sort of thing - simply because there's a personal accountability of the harasser that they should be accounted for.

Good luck telling people who were hit and permanently disabled by a car that you and fellow victims of harassment have it bad. If you think I said (or insinuated!) anywhere in any of my posts that the harasser isn't to blame, show me. The one to blame is always the one that's harming another individual. I still don't see why my comparison is wrong. You can think it's in bad taste, but that doesn't invalidate it in the slightest.

And while we're talking about harassment, I would just like to point out that I was severely harassed my entire sixth grade year in primary school, the formative years. I understand what it's like to be bullied, to dread getting up and doing anything in the morning. That's why I'm actually trying to make a case for solving the issues rather than crying about how bad they are.

 

[The Admiral]

I'm gonna just go out on a limb here and say that most of you missed what I was trying to say by a painfully wide margin.

Was it a bad metaphor? Yes. Did I express myself poorly? Yes.

But I did not IN ANY WAY suggest that rapists were like the victims of car accidents. I said -- or meant to say -- that teaching a woman ~*how not to get raped*~ is about as condescending as telling them to watch out for that car. Mostly because we are taught to be vigilant from a young age. Never mind the fact that we should be trying to teach potential rapists not to commit rape, as opposed to teaching potential victims not to let themselves get raped -- because we have been over that time and time again and I think we've concluded that that's a good idea.

Okay, maybe we haven't. I think maybe I should just revert back to my old plan with this to just be a snipey ***** to everyone.

Good luck telling people who were hit and permanently disabled by a car that you and fellow victims of harassment have it bad. If you think I said (or insinuated!) anywhere in any of my posts that the harasser isn't to blame, show me. The one to blame is always the one that's harming another individual. I still don't see why my comparison is wrong. You can think it's in bad taste, but that doesn't invalidate it in the slightest.

Let me go back and just emphasize one word:

Accident.

Do people just get harassed by accident? No. They don't. That's why your altered comparison sucks, among other reasons.

 

[John Madden]

The intent and scenario are different, but the precautionary measures are similar in need. In both you are making yourself less of a target. Whether there is intent or not, it doesn't matter. We know that both are affected by the personal choice to take preventative measures.

friendly reminder that many people who have taken all the precautions in the world short of literally sealing themselves into a suit of armor, alphonse elric style, have still been harassed and/or assaulted, including a very large proportion of my friends (in both genders)

victims shouldn't have to constantly peruse a laundry list of Things I Should Do To Maybe Avoid Rape, perpetrators should maybe not constantly get their behaviour enabled to the point that they decide rape is an acceptable option, simple as that

 

[Peter Quill]

Good luck telling people who were hit and permanently disabled by a car that you and fellow victims of harassment have it bad.

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that it's unfair that you paint the two in the same light, simply because you're saying people make themselves into targets which isn't the case.

If you think I said (or insinuated!) anywhere in any of my posts that the harasser isn't to blame, show me. The one to blame is always the one that's harming another individual. I still don't see why my comparison is wrong. You can think it's in bad taste, but that doesn't invalidate it in the slightest.

The fact of the matter is when you start piling reasons onto people (whether they be in a car accident or the subject of harassment) that gives a vibe that starts to rationalize or explain the offender's behaviour, you're switching the scenario so that it looks like its their fault. I'm not saying you don't think they should be held accountable, what I'm saying is that you're starting to diminish the experiences and you're starting to excuse behaviour, and that's not ok.

That's why I'm actually trying to make a case for solving the issues rather than crying about how bad they are.

Your case for "solving the issues" is simply trying to do preventative measures on victims when you should be focusing on ways to stop harassment in general. People can only try to prevent themselves for so long, it's about nipping the problem at the source.

 

[The Federation]

But I did not IN ANY WAY suggest that rapists were like the victims of car accidents. I said -- or meant to say -- that teaching a woman ~*how not to get raped*~ is about as condescending as telling them to watch out for that car. Mostly because we are taught to be vigilant from a young age. Never mind the fact that we should be trying to teach potential rapists not to commit rape, as opposed to teaching potential victims not to let themselves get raped -- because we have been over that time and time again and I think we've concluded that that's a good idea.

Do you actually think that teaching rapists not to rape is going to be more effective than teaching women (and men, ofc) how to become less of a target?

Let's get away from this self-righteous crap about how life should be and get come to the realization that we don't live in that world. Would it be better to remove rapists from society? Yes. Is it a realistic goal? NO. The best preventative measure that can be taken is individualistic modesty, caution, and wariness.

Back to my much-disputed car analogy, most people already know not to rape, just like most people already know that you have to drive carefully at night, but that won't stop the few moral deviants and lazy drivers from raping someone/hitting a child, respectively. Unfortunately, one of the best things we can do is hope for the best and remain vigilant.

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that it's unfair that you paint the two in the same light, simply because you're saying people make themselves into targets which isn't the case.

No, that's not what I was saying at all. Please don't strawman me, I take caution not to do it to others.

The fact of the matter is when you start piling reasons onto people (whether they be in a car accident or the subject of harassment) that gives a vibe that starts to rationalize or explain the offender's behaviour, you're switching the scenario so that it looks like its their fault. I'm not saying you don't think they should be held accountable, what I'm saying is that you're starting to diminish the experiences and you're starting to excuse behaviour, and that's not ok.

No, it doesn't, it explains that the offender has a rationale, personally at least. There's a difference. You have to know what the problem is so you can solve it. Just like it doesn't diminish the experience when you warn someone not to run onto the road, it also doesn't take away from the experience of someone who is a potential victim for harassment.

Your case for "solving the issues" is simply trying to do preventative measures on victims when you should be focusing on ways to stop harassment in general. People can only try to prevent themselves for so long, it's about nipping the problem at the source.

Victims have a role to play, as they're half the equation. It doesn't make them accountable, but it makes them safer. If they choose not to, it doesn't make it any more their fault than the other way around. If you want to offer a better way to solve the issue than me, so be it. I am getting really tired of "feminists" who want to complain about the issues but always, consistently, fail when asked how to solve them.

 

[The Admiral]

Do you actually think that teaching rapists not to rape is going to be more effective than teaching women (and men, ofc) how to become less of a target?

So we just shouldn't do it because it's hard, even though it's the right thing?

 

[John Madden]

Do you actually think that teaching rapists not to rape is going to be more effective than teaching women (and men, ofc) how to become less of a target?

Yes, because stigmatizing a behavior is more effective at keeping that behavior in check than permanently telling the other people affected by that behaviour that they need to try harder to avoid it, for the simple reason that the perpetrator is less likely to do it if it's not validated somehow.

 

[The Federation]

So we just shouldn't do it because it's hard, even though it's the right thing?

I'm wondering if it's possible. There's a very high rate of recidivism for rapists, hence the rape watch list they have going on.

Yes, because stigmatizing a behavior is more effective at keeping that behavior in check than permanently telling the other people affected by that behaviour that they need to try harder to avoid it, for the simple reason that the perpetrator is less likely to do it if it's not validated somehow.

What are you saying? It could be that it's getting late, but I don't understand. I see it's sarcastic, but I don't see the message.

 

[John Madden]

What are you saying? It could be that it's getting late, but I don't understand. I see it's sarcastic, but I don't see the message.

That's starting to become apparent.

You don't have Torrington, Steubenville, Saratoga, Cole Harbour, and many, many more rapes without an almost pathological need by the surrounding communities to avoid actually stigmatizing the rapists in any meaningful way; almost none of those would've been prevented with a laundry list of Potential Victim Safety Precautions. I'm not sure why this is at all a controversial or potentially sarcastic statement.

 

[The Admiral]

Yes, because stigmatizing a behavior is more effective at keeping that behavior in check than permanently telling the other people affected by that behaviour that they need to try harder to avoid it, for the simple reason that the perpetrator is less likely to do it if it's not validated somehow.

But don't you see how hard that would be? That would involve learning to trust the victims!

I'm wondering if it's possible. There's a very high rate of recidivism for rapists, hence the rape watch list they have going on.

I submit that doing the right thing is a moral imperative, difficulty or even possibility be damned. How will we know we can't do it until we try?

That's starting to become apparent.

You don't have Torrington, Steubenville, Saratoga, Cole Harbour, and many, many more rapes without an almost pathological need by the surrounding communities to avoid actually stigmatizing the rapists in any meaningful way; almost none of those would've been prevented with a laundry list of Potential Victim Safety Precautions. I'm not sure why this is at all a controversial or potentially sarcastic statement.

Not to mention all the media overrun by rape jokes and degradation of women. If society truly, actively condemned rapists, they would not exist, or would at least not enjoy popularity.

 

[John Madden]

I submit that doing the right thing is a moral imperative, difficulty or even possibility be damned. How will we know we can't do it until we try?

"Recidivism rates are high" is not a particularly good counterargument without the context of what kind of psychological reinforcement the perpetrators are receiving (for example, as you point out, media loves to paint the perpetrators as Secret Victims when their audiences let them get away with it, which is often), but why focus on that when we can just claim there's no fixing this problem ever?

 

[The Admiral]

Horsewhip all convicted rapists under the age of 18 on national TV.

Anyone over 18 gets a bullet.

Male or female. Give them a very thorough and very public trial.

Tough call. I love seeing a villain get their comeuppance, but I've seen a few statistics floating around that the death penalty is not a strong deterrent, and can be very expensive. So, it may not be of any real use and may just be far more taxing -- but I do fully understand why it sounds like a good idea.

"Recidivism rates are high" is not a particularly good counterargument without the context of what kind of psychological reinforcement the perpetrators are receiving (for example, as you point out, media loves to paint the perpetrators as Secret Victims when their audiences let them get away with it, which is often), but why focus on that when we can just claim there's no fixing this problem ever?

It seems that taking the easy way out is kind of Feds' MO on this one.

 

[Peter Quill]

No, that's not what I was saying at all. Please don't strawman me, I take caution not to do it to others.

"In both you are making yourself less of a target." You are literally insinuating that people make themselves a target of some sort. I called you out saying "you're saying people make themselves into targets which isn't the case." Don't try and cry strawman to me when I'm literally using the words that you said earlier.

Also my general question to you The Federation is how you propose an even higher focus on victim prevention is going to stop such an epidemic. Our society is already focused on trying to prevent (Girls, watch your cups, wear nice clothes) yet rape is still happening. The solution seems easy enough, just stigmatize the action so people won't do it, but why isn't this good enough?

 

[The Federation]

You don't have Torrington, Steubenville, Saratoga, Cole Harbour, and many, many more rapes without an almost pathological need by the surrounding communities to avoid actually stigmatizing the rapists in any meaningful way; almost none of those would've been prevented with a laundry list of Potential Victim Safety Precautions. I'm not sure why this is at all a controversial or potentially sarcastic statement.

Probably because I didn't see you're point, as you were so quick to point out. I took my time making it abundantly clear that taking precautions of any nature isn't a foolproof method. You act as if I were one the side of those sexually assaulting, raping, etc, when in fact my only goal from the beginning has been purely benevolent. Instead of condemning me, why don't you see the intent, tell me I'm wrong without implying I'm an idiot, and give ways to solve the problem?

But don't you see how hard that would be? That would involve learning to trust the victims!

You condemn harassment... right? I'm starting to feel like what I say and what you hear are less and less linked to one another.

I submit that doing the right thing is a moral imperative, difficulty or even possibility be damned. How will we know we can't do it until we try?

Then by all means, lets try. I haven't condemned it, have I? I just don't think it's realistic, to get people who act that way to simply stop? But that doesn't mean it's not worth a shot.

 

[John Madden]

Probably because I didn't see you're point, as you were so quick to point out. I took my time making it abundantly clear that taking precautions of any nature isn't a foolproof method. You act as if I were one the side of those sexually assaulting, raping, etc, when in fact my only goal from the beginning has been purely benevolent. Instead of condemning me, why don't you see the intent, tell me I'm wrong without implying I'm an idiot, and give ways to solve the problem?

Actually I'm pretty sure I specifically am acting like your claims that [paraphrasing] "stigmatizing the act of rape (for perpetrators, prior to the act) is an unwieldy solution at best; also, we should focus even more than we already do on victim-side prevention efforts" are unfounded, and nothing more.

Make enough of an effort to curb the act from the source, using psychological warfare in that effort, and you'll see better results. If a possible perp isn't driven to "need" that sense of empowerment, the perp generally won't decide to commit the act - kind of like how other violent crime rates correlate negatively with income.

 

[LDSman]

Tough call. I love seeing a villain get their comeuppance, but I've seen a few statistics floating around that the death penalty is not a strong deterrent, and can be very expensive. So, it may not be of any real use and may just be far more taxing -- but I do fully understand why it sounds like a good idea.

That's because the DP takes so long to apply. In these cases, it'd be right after the trial. I'm quite serious about this.

 

[The Federation]

"In both you are making yourself less of a target." You are literally insinuating that people make themselves a target of some sort. I called you out saying "you're saying people make themselves into targets which isn't the case." Don't try and cry strawman to me when I'm literally using the words that you said earlier.

If I rephrased it to "You are less of a target under both scenarios" would you understand? "Literally insinuating" is one of the most vague condemnations I've ever received, all for something that was never meant in the first place. Who knew semantics could totally change the tone and character of a discussion to a degree that either party was insulted by another? I should have, honestly.
So, to rephrase: You are less of a target if you take precautions in both scenarios.

Also my general question to you The Federation is how you propose an even higher focus on victim prevention is going to stop such an epidemic. Our society is already focused on trying to prevent (Girls, watch your cups, wear nice clothes) yet rape is still happening. The solution seems easy enough, just stigmatize the action so people won't do it, but why isn't this good enough?

I didn't suggest it was going to stop it, I didn't say it was going to be a huge factor. I said it was worth a shot, worth giving your time to. Why isn't this good enough for you? I never said it was the be all, end all of the discussion. I was only suggesting one route one could follow if they wanted to try avoid any sort of harassment. It's one small step in the right direction, not a leap over all the problems we've seen in the recent years, decades even.

Actually I'm pretty sure I specifically am acting like your claims that [paraphrasing] "stigmatizing the act of rape (for perpetrators, prior to the act) is an unwieldy solution at best; also, we should focus even more than we already do on victim-side prevention efforts" are unfounded, and nothing more.

If you're going to act like I am saying the only solution is prevention, you are the one who doesn't understand what is being said. Stigmatism is certainly worth its weight.

Make enough of an effort to curb the act from the source, using psychological warfare in that effort, and you'll see better results. If a possible perp isn't driven to "need" that sense of empowerment, the perp generally won't decide to commit the act - kind of like how other violent crime rates correlate negatively with income.

Ok, now we're seeing some sort of discussion. How this is going to actually happen, I don't know. But it's something to work with in the context of the discussion.

"Recidivism rates are high" is not a particularly good counterargument without the context of what kind of psychological reinforcement the perpetrators are receiving (for example, as you point out, media loves to paint the perpetrators as Secret Victims when their audiences let them get away with it, which is often), but why focus on that when we can just claim there's no fixing this problem ever?

If I am being this misunderstood, I am definitely doing something wrong. I have never claimed, nor will I ever claim, that stopping at prevention, or even placing all our stock in prevention, is the only way to solve the problem. What can I change so I'm not fundamentally misunderstood in everything I say? I'm being as clear as I can when I say my suggestion, while it might be flawed, unworkable, or wrong, is just a drop in the bucket, just one idea to be flown out and hopefully see itself working positively in society. I never painted victims as the one's responsible, I never meant to say it was the only way to go about things.

 

[Eterna]

That's starting to become apparent.

Yes, because stigmatizing a behavior is more effective at keeping that behavior in check than permanently telling the other people affected by that behaviour that they need to try harder to avoid it, for the simple reason that the perpetrator is less likely to do it if it's not validated somehow.

Why can't we just do both? I'm not for victim blaming at all, but surely if there is something people can do to lessen the chances they are a target then they should do it.