Escaping the Echo Chamber

[Frelga]

Al, I see you chose not to respond to the first part of my post.

Al, to be fair, I didn't really see you trying to reach out and understand why you got the response you did. .

[Alatar]

Frelga, naturally I would disagree, but you are entitled to believe that.

Yov, I appreciate what you're saying but I don't believe I ever stated or agreed with judging women. All I said and continue to say is that it's smart to be careful in a risky situation. I know this may also sound patronising but in the last five pages nobody has given me reason to change my position on that. Should I just agree to disagree?

[yovargas]

. All I said and continue to say is that it's smart to be careful in a risky situation. I know this may also sound patronising but in the last five pages nobody has given me reason to change my position on that.

That's because nobody is asking you to change your position on that. It's a reasonable position. What has been brought up, instead, are the surrounding problems with always making that a major part of the conversation whenever a woman is assaulted. And I've also tried to highlight the problem of asking women to "be careful in a risky situation" when a) most assault is done by familiar men, not strangers and b) in some cultures women are far more "cautious" than western women and yet it doesn't necessarily seem to reduce incidents of of assault. I'm saying these factors expose some serious flaws in the suspiciously common narrative that women need to be more careful.

(It is also worth noting that discussions about how women should be more careful seem far more frequent and common then discussions about how men should be less rapey. For some reason men's behavior is taken as an unchangeable fact of life but women's behavior is not.)

[Inanna]

Exactly - what Yov said. Al, the question (and your position) is not related to whether women should be careful or not, it is whether the public discourse should be about women being careful or not.

Given the limited resources and attention span people have, do we want the public discourse to be about the specific women being careful or about the specific men being #%%%%#?

[Primula Baggins]

(It is also worth noting that discussions about how women should be more careful seem far more frequent and common then discussions about how men should be less rapey. For some reason men's behavior is taken as an unchangeable fact of life but women's behavior is not.)

This is the core reason for annoyance for a lot of women, including me. Why must the discussion be entirely about ways we can make ourselves safer? Why can't it also be, or even primarily be, about why the danger in fact exists and ways to decrease it at its source?

As Inanna already said.

[Frelga]

What Prim said.

The reason we don't need to stop and consider Al's position is because it is one we have heard all our lives. It is that women are inherently in danger when they enter a space populated by men. It's like alpine skiing is inherently dangerous for the skiers.

What I would like Al to consider is the idea that, unlike gravity and friction, men are capable of controlling their actions, and that when a man hurts a woman, the only person responsible is the man.

There is also no need to tell me that this is how things are. I know, in visceral ways men can't comprehend. I want to help change how things are.

The first step is challenging the "men are inherently dangerous to women" mindset. If Al's broadcaster was one of the voices that propagated that mindset and was incapable of changing, then good riddance.

[River]

Maybe it's just easier to give women lists of all the things they should do to protect themselves and be good, sympathetic victims when the inevitable jackassery occurs than it is to get the perpetrators of the jackassery to just stop. It's easy to wag fingers at someone for being reckless (however you define it). It's not so easy to rethink how an entire society needs to change so half its members don't have to do all sorts of little rituals and dances so they can maintain an illusion of safety from a poisonous minority within the other half.

[Frelga]

Maybe it's just easier to give women lists of all the things they should do to protect themselves and be good, sympathetic victims when the inevitable jackassery occurs than it is to get the perpetrators of the jackassery to just stop. It's easy to wag fingers at someone for being reckless (however you define it). It's not so easy to rethink how an entire society needs to change so half its members don't have to do all sorts of little rituals and dances so they can maintain an illusion of safety from a poisonous minority within the other half.

A minority that only exists because the majority shrugs and says that it's just how things are.

[River]

Like gravity. Or foul weather. Or infection.

[Alatar]

I don't think anyone ever said any of those things but thanks for proving my point.

[Alatar]

I don't think anyone ever said any of those things but thanks for proving my point.

For what it's worth I do appreciate you all trying to engage with me but I honestly feel like everyone is still just ignoring the basic point. Everyone agrees men should not rape. Everyone agrees people need to be educated. Everyone agrees men need to be taught boundaries. Everyone agrees that no means no. But until such time as all of these things come to pass, I'll still be telling my kids to be careful.

[Impenitent]

Al

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk

[Primula Baggins]

Al, of course. It's just that this is a problem that won't be solved until real change happens, and real change will never happen as long as the reaction to sexual assault in many quarters* is along the line of "Whatcha gonna do? I mean. . . ." and a shrug. Look at what that attitude has done to the death rate from guns in this country.

*By this I do not mean you, Alatar.

[yovargas]

But until such time as all of these things come to pass, I'll still be telling my kids to be careful.

Did someone tell you not to?

[Cerin]

Given the limited resources and attention span people have, do we want the public discourse to be about the specific women being careful or about the specific men being #%%%%#?

Given that a woman is sexually assaulted every 98 seconds in this country, and given that it takes less time to lock a window then to transform society, and if our goal is to decrease the number of sexual assaults, then discourse about women being careful is at least as important as discourse about men being #%%%%#. Discourse on the former could actually result in windows being locked tonight and women being spared this experience; I'm not clear on how discourse is supposed to stop men from being #%%%%#, or how quickly those results are anticipated.

What has been brought up, instead, are the surrounding problems with always making that a major part of the conversation whenever a woman is assaulted.

Is it made a major part of the conversation whenever a woman is assaulted, or is it made a major part of the conversation whenever a woman is assaulted after doing something foolish? (foolish: lacking good sense or judgment; unwise.)

And speaking of judgment, we judge constantly, everyday. We consider, assess, form opinions, reach conclusions. Is women's conduct somehow exempt from judgement? If a woman is acting foolishly, and her actions might have devastating consequences, how does withholding judgement show anything but cruel and callous indifference?

[Dave_LF]

I feel like the conversation is just going around in circles now, but to go back a few pages to something yov said:

*********************************
Why does a broadcaster start telling his audience that a rape victim is to blame for her assault? He has no idea of his audience's mental conditions, he has no idea who they are, he has no idea what dangers they might pose. But modern day social activity means that he spouts off what's on his mind. Then is surprised when somebody else comes into the room and fires him. Should he be fired? Course he shouldn’t. Is he entitled to apologize? Absolutely. Are the people got that him fired scumbags? Probably. All of those things. But is there no blame now to the person who puts themselves in danger of being fired?
*********************************

Honestly, I would say more or less exactly that to a (non Fox) TV personality who did the same thing in the US. i.e., even if you've got a valid point in there somewhere, what were you thinking saying it on the air in the current climate? Did you really think the reaction would be anything other than what it was? Now, depending on the details, I may or may not be willing to take the same risk by sticking up for the guy, but even if I did, the above is what I'd be saying to him in private.

This is the core reason for annoyance for a lot of women, including me. Why must the discussion be entirely about ways we can make ourselves safer? Why can't it also be, or even primarily be, about why the danger in fact exists and ways to decrease it at its source?

Why can't it be both? And to say this again, men who are convicted of rape have their reputations destroyed and go to jail for a long time. Men who are merely accused of rape can have their entire lives ruined by that accusation, even if they turn out to be innocent. In concrete terms, what more should we do? It's not like the situation with gun control where there are easy and obvious problems with the laws that could be corrected if we only had the political will to do it.

I'm trying to imagine how I'd feel about things if men suddenly started being assaulted at the same rates as women, but it isn't easy. I can't think of any ideas for new laws. Better security is a thought, but these things by design tend to begin in private, so that doesn't really work. Harsher punishment to prevent repeat offences might help, but it's been pretty difficult to achieve that even with petty offences...

[Alatar]

In a related coincidence, I'm working with a group of 16 year old students this week. These were on display in the area. As you can see, the one for guys is different to the ones fir the girls. Sexism, or a recognition of the reality of the situations they will face?

[Inanna]

Sensible advice.

Because this is equivalent to teaching your kids sensible stuff (what you claim this thread is about); in contrast, the radio host saying the woman should have been careful is about the public discourse on holding a woman responsible (what you actually started this thread about). And the two are actually different.

[yovargas]

I don't think anyone ever said any of those things but thanks for proving my point.

As I already brought up once, I'm pretty sure nobody in this thread has told you to not tell your kids to be careful in iffy situations. Yet you keep responding as if that's all anybody is telling you. Are you sure you're listening to other's responses?

Genuinely not trying to be snarky there, but I'm not even sure who or what your last few responses are directed at. They don't really seem directed at what anybody here is saying.

[Alatar]

I certainly think I am Yov, but what it seems to me that everyone is saying, is that we should never talk about how a woman could have been more careful, because that is blaming the victim, instead of the perpetrator. It doesn't matter how many times we say otherwise, that's all that keeps being repeated. Even Inanna's post directly above yours misstates what the thread is supposed to be about.

..the radio host saying the woman should have been careful is about the public discourse on holding a woman responsible (what you actually started this thread about).

In fact I made it abundantly clear at every point in this discussion, that the woman should never be held responsible. Yet that is what gets repeated as being what we're arguing for. There is a huge difference between holding a woman responsible, and saying she could exercise greater care.