Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[tesseract]

If a female walks home or out to the shop provokes violence in a person, they should be locked up, castrated and the key thrown away.
Sometimes if the action of others can't be controlled then neither can the consequences.

If? Is there any evidence for your hypothetical of men being provoked into violence upon the mere sight of a random woman in public? Or is your hypothetical simply appealing to emotion and feelings to justify your extremist projection of violence against men in the form of castration?

Your extremist call for castrating is an example of a feminist's irrationality, acting on emotion and hypocritically not seeking equality under the law. Yours is a demonstration of the typical feminist acting on feelings. As it's said of feminists: feelz > realz.

 

[ydraw]

So if a female gets off a train at 2 PM and has to walk three streets to her home, what precautions do you suggest she takes?

Stick to main thoroughfares, avoid alleyways that can't be seen from the street. You know, common sense.

 

[CM86]

Stick to main thoroughfares, avoid alleyways that can't be seen from the street. You know, common sense.

Did you confuse pm with am?

 

[cartwright]

No. "Expect" implies a form of entitlement. Given that one can't control the actions of another in such a situation, safety is hoped for rather than expected.

So individuals shouldn't feel safe, expect safeness, but hope for it?

Lol.

 

[cartwright]

I'm not saying there are always precautions that can be taken, just that, where possible, it is wise to take what precautions are available.

Is the person inviting it?

When Joshua Hardy was killed by a random act of violence, being out at 1am. There was no similar language used (& there shouldn't be)

Yet a girl, walking at 6pm invokes this language.

Why?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Or is your hypothetical simply appealing to emotion and feelings to justify your extremist projection of violence against men in the form of castration?

Is it sexist to believe men who hold your views about rape should be castrated?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that SJW's lack common sense.

And whose alias are you?

 

[telsor]

Is the person inviting it?

When Joshua Hardy was killed by a random act of violence, being out at 1am. There was no similar language used (& there shouldn't be)

Yet a girl, walking at 6pm invokes this language.

Why?

Of course the person isn't inviting it.

I don't see a problem with people being advised how to minimise their risks however, and after others were attacked is a valid time to do so (people are paying attention for one).

Let's say someone has 2 options for how to get from point A to point B.

One is along well lit main street, and has a reasonable number of people, while the other is down a back alley, known to be the occasional venue for, shall we say, 'undesirable types'.

Is it really a bad thing to suggest that someone goes along the main street?

If I had the opportunity, but said nothing, and they went along the back alley and something bad happened, I'd certainly feel guilty for not advising them (although somehow that seems to be a bad thing according to the response to advise), but I certainly wouldn't blame the person who chose that route.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

What about walking alone at 2 PM or 6 PM? Should one expect to feel safe?

what about being home alone with one's husband/partner/father/uncle?

 

[Maggie5]

If? Is there any evidence for your hypothetical of men being provoked into violence upon the mere sight of a random woman in public? Or is your hypothetical simply appealing to emotion and feelings to justify your extremist projection of violence against men in the form of castration?

Your extremist call for castrating is an example of a feminist's irrationality, acting on emotion and hypocritically not seeking equality under the law. Yours is a demonstration of the typical feminist acting on feelings. As it's said of feminists: feelz > realz.

Okay, so why do they do it?

 

[Maggie5]

I'm not saying there are always precautions that can be taken, just that, where possible, it is wise to take what precautions are available.

You actually are really not saying much at all.
Maybe they should just carry a gun with a nice pearl handle or a knife, just in case?

 

[Maggie5]

And whose alias are you?

Beat me to it! Strange, banned posters come back under a different name and sometimes different team but you just can't change they way they post or their views on certain subjects. It always comes across.

 

[Maggie5]

what about being home alone with one's husband/partner/father/uncle?

High fences all around, security cameras direct to police stations or just build a fortress, great way to live.
Nah, if they catch them, lock them up and throw away the key.

 

[Maggie5]

Of course the person isn't inviting it.

I don't see a problem with people being advised how to minimise their risks however, and after others were attacked is a valid time to do so (people are paying attention for one).

Let's say someone has 2 options for how to get from point A to point B.

One is along well lit main street, and has a reasonable number of people, while the other is down a back alley, known to be the occasional venue for, shall we say, 'undesirable types'.

Is it really a bad thing to suggest that someone goes along the main street?

If I had the opportunity, but said nothing, and they went along the back alley and something bad happened, I'd certainly feel guilty for not advising them (although somehow that seems to be a bad thing according to the response to advise), but I certainly wouldn't blame the person who chose that route.

How many incidents have occurred down a back alley? I can only think of one.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Regarding the victim blaming/taking extra precaution discussion, I've been reading an interesting book on the topic of sex offenders, and the author suggests that the focus on the victim's actions/behaviour (revealing clothing, walking alone at night, drinking excessively etc, to name a few common examples) leading up to a random attack is largely used as a coping mechanism. This is why - in the author's opinion - a lot of the criticism for the victim's behaviour comes from women and, in many cases, the victim themselves.

It's suggested that by identifying things that the victim could have done differently that may have reduced their risk, we are able to convince ourselves that the attack was avoidable, and that we have some control over whether or not it will happen to us. It's better to believe that we can do things to avoid being attacked and convince ourselves that we have control over our own safety, rather than face the reality that we don't - and that we could be victims of a random attack at any time, anywhere.

 

[telsor]

How many incidents have occurred down a back alley? I can only think of one.

Really, 'stranger' incidents are quite rare generally, and it was only an example to illustrate the point that where there are multiple options, advising on safer choices isn't 'victim blaming'.

 

[Maggie5]

Really, 'stranger' incidents are quite rare generally, and it was only an example to illustrate the point that where there are multiple options, advising on safer choices isn't 'victim blaming'.

I have not referred to victim blaming however most people have posted that the victim has to be more careful, what to do with the perpetrators? How do we restrict their ability to roam the streets freely?
Not so sure about your comment re 'stranger' incidents being rare.

 

[cartwright]

Of course the person isn't inviting it.

I don't see a problem with people being advised how to minimise their risks however, and after others were attacked is a valid time to do so (people are paying attention for one).

Let's say someone has 2 options for how to get from point A to point B.

One is along well lit main street, and has a reasonable number of people, while the other is down a back alley, known to be the occasional venue for, shall we say, 'undesirable types'.

Is it really a bad thing to suggest that someone goes along the main street?

If I had the opportunity, but said nothing, and they went along the back alley and something bad happened, I'd certainly feel guilty for not advising them (although somehow that seems to be a bad thing according to the response to advise), but I certainly wouldn't blame the person who chose that route.

Thanks... but that wasn't the question

I would always encourage people to make decisions considering their safety.

I do not think walking home at 6PM is an invitation. The example I used, has someone out at a much later time, and in the crime committed against him, it wasn't questioned what he was doing, where he was, and suggesting that he invited this crime.

 

[telsor]

I have not referred to victim blaming however most people have posted that the victim has to be more careful, what to do with the perpetrators? How do we restrict their ability to roam the streets freely?

Unless we can identify the 'criminal precursor' thoughts of a perpetrator (a scary prospect even if it was possible) and punish them (an even scarier idea), I doubt there is much that can be done.

Not so sure about your comment re 'stranger' incidents being rare.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html

12.3% of sexual assaults on women are by strangers. Not sure if that counts as 'rare', but it's a very clear minority of cases.

 

[telsor]

Thanks... but that wasn't the question

I would always encourage people to make decisions considering their safety.

I do not think walking home at 6PM is an invitation. The example I used, has someone out at a much later time, and in the crime committed against him, it wasn't questioned what he was doing, where he was, and suggesting that he invited this crime.

Why? People people try to protect women more than they do men.

 

[Maggie5]

Unless we can identify the 'criminal precursor' thoughts of a perpetrator (a scary prospect even if it was possible) and punish them (an even scarier idea), I doubt there is much that can be done.
http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html
12.3% of sexual assaults on women are by strangers. Not sure if that counts as 'rare', but it's a very clear minority of cases.

Actually I would consider more than 10% a concern.

I think that it has been shown in many instances that our legal system of early parole, bail and also that lack of support services in the area of mental health have been identified as areas of concern once the perpetrators have been caught and charged.

You didn't respond to my question as to how many attacks have been in dark alleys.

 

[telsor]

Actually I would consider more than 10% a concern.

Even 1 is a concern, whatever the rate, but to get back to the point, if I could tell people a method of changing the potential victims behavior in a relatively minor way that could reduce that rate, then I think that information should be shared.

When I ride my Motorbike, I wear more protective gear than I 'have to', and sometimes more than I'd like to, but I think it wise and prudent to sacrifice some convenience for greater safety, and don't get offended when people give me defensive riding tips, because even though I might be the 'innocent victim' of someone else's misdeeds, I'll still be the one messed up by them so I consider it a good idea to play safe, much as I might strive (when off the bike) to get car drivers to behave as they're supposed to.

I think that it has been shown in many instances that our legal system of early parole, bail and also that lack of support services in the area of mental health have been identified as areas of concern once the perpetrators have been caught and charged.

If 1 in 100 early releases on bail re-offends during the early release period, should all 100 be jailed for longer? Early release is a calculated risk, but always begs the question of where do you draw the line for that, 1 in 10, 1 in 1000?
If likelihood to re-offend is taken into account, would you be OK with matters like race/social environment being taken into consideration?
How much money would you have spent on mental health 'precautionary' programs? If 1 in 3 people (approx rate on mental illness) has to see a shrink once every 3 months, that's 30 million visits, or comfortably over 4 billion dollars (given what even 'cheap' shrinks charge, even if we could find that many), not counting the admin and coercive side of things (so probably $10B+). While that might be a nice idea, it'd need to reduce crime by a massive amount to convince people that the money be better spent elsewhere.

You didn't respond to my question as to how many attacks have been in dark alleys.

Sorry, I thought that was rhetorical. I have no idea. As I said, it was merely an illustrative example of 2 choices deliberately 'set up' to make those choices clearer than they would probably be in reality.

 

[Chief]

Interesting that on last night's Q&A that ethicist Peter Singer and Amanda Vanstone agreed with my view in post #3678 that warning/advising/telling folks not to walk alone at night in risky areas/neighbourhoods doesn't amount to victim blaming. Rather they said it was common sense. Pity some of the feminists/SJWs here don't seem to have common sense, at least in this regard.

Nothing wrong with educating people to be mindful of their own safety.

That you think this is the general attitude shows that you have missed the entire point.

 

[Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear]

Woman fails fire department physical, gets the job anyway.

http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/

 

[tesseract]

So individuals shouldn't feel safe, expect safeness, but hope for it?

Lol.

How can one feel safe or expect to be safe when their safety doesn't entirely come down to what's in their control? This is why safety is hoped for, but isn't a matter of feeling safe or expecting safety. Hence advising folks to take measures to limit exposure to risky situations such as walking alone at night in unlit areas.

Do you want police on every corner just so women can have their feelings catered to in feeling safe? Such was mentioned on last night's Q&A as not being wanted or practical. Feelings aren't always rational and are ever changing, so attempting to cater to them is nonsensical.