- Joined
- Oct 20, 2014
- Posts
- 21,238
- Reaction score
- 24,477
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Why risk it if you know it is dangerous?
Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2
- Thread starter fleabitten
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2014
- Posts
- 21,238
- Reaction score
- 24,477
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
So you are saying that I shouldn't warn my daughters about the dangers of walking alone at night?
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2014
- Posts
- 21,238
- Reaction score
- 24,477
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
I thought you were of the opinion that it is safe. I wanted you to go through safe areas only.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2014
- Posts
- 21,238
- Reaction score
- 24,477
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
I did what you lot always do and assumed you meant what KV, Cartwright and the others accused me of! That is why you joined in isn't it? I didn't see any questions from you to them.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Posts
- 19,916
- Reaction score
- 18,883
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Pretty big mistake to make... but it's not your fault?
Lucky it wasn't a mistake like walking in a public area after 6pm...
cartwright
Brownlow Medallist
Dunstan goal!
(about as relevant as the last two pages of this thread, anyway).
(about as relevant as the last two pages of this thread, anyway).
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2010
- Posts
- 14,335
- Reaction score
- 20,006
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Detroit Pistons
I think that the answer to this one lies somewhere in the middle. On its very surface it seems relatively easy to dismiss. A mayor/police officer/other public figure in a position of authority telling people to avoid circumstances in which they are more likely than otherwise to be victims of crime. So what? But this ignores the narrative of how sexual assault cases are largely portrayed.
A male gets beaten and mugged walking home at 6:30 PM. What are the chances that the main talking points surrounding the issue are in relation to the danger that they put themselves in? Almost none. In fact, you'd barely hear a peep if they were walking home in a poor neighbourhood, plastered at 3 AM. Because in these circumstances it is taken as self evident that there are dangers of being alone and vulnerable, but it is assumed that these people either were placed in these circumstances out of necessity, or they weighed up the various dangers and decided to place themselves in these situations anyway. It barely even registers in the conversation. This is troublesome because it implies that there is some sort of greater burden on women to prevent their own assaults, which can come across as victim blaming. It becomes especially apparent when you understand the actual victim blaming that has gone on surrounding instances of sexual assault and rape. It's very easy to see how a 'take precautions' can translate to victim blaming, especially if you are clumsy or outright clueless with the language you use (invitation FFS).
Just report the facts of what happened and let the dangerous circumstances stand as self-evident like you would in any other instance. And why the need to even mention gender? It's irrelevant. I honestly wouldn't even care if there is a small mention of being aware of the circumstances you place yourself in, as long as it is consistent with how other assaults are presented and the language isn't callous, as it was in this instance. Sure, some people would still get angry about it, but people get angry about a lot of things that they probably shouldn't.
A male gets beaten and mugged walking home at 6:30 PM. What are the chances that the main talking points surrounding the issue are in relation to the danger that they put themselves in? Almost none. In fact, you'd barely hear a peep if they were walking home in a poor neighbourhood, plastered at 3 AM. Because in these circumstances it is taken as self evident that there are dangers of being alone and vulnerable, but it is assumed that these people either were placed in these circumstances out of necessity, or they weighed up the various dangers and decided to place themselves in these situations anyway. It barely even registers in the conversation. This is troublesome because it implies that there is some sort of greater burden on women to prevent their own assaults, which can come across as victim blaming. It becomes especially apparent when you understand the actual victim blaming that has gone on surrounding instances of sexual assault and rape. It's very easy to see how a 'take precautions' can translate to victim blaming, especially if you are clumsy or outright clueless with the language you use (invitation FFS).
Just report the facts of what happened and let the dangerous circumstances stand as self-evident like you would in any other instance. And why the need to even mention gender? It's irrelevant. I honestly wouldn't even care if there is a small mention of being aware of the circumstances you place yourself in, as long as it is consistent with how other assaults are presented and the language isn't callous, as it was in this instance. Sure, some people would still get angry about it, but people get angry about a lot of things that they probably shouldn't.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2014
- Posts
- 21,238
- Reaction score
- 24,477
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Not at all. The way you lot align is quite sickening really!
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Posts
- 19,916
- Reaction score
- 18,883
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Yes, I'm sure you getting called out all the time would make you sick to your stomach.Not at all. The way you lot align is quite sickening really!
It's just a forum, don't let it affect you so much!
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
- Posts
- 5,562
- Reaction score
- 4,524
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- MUFC, Golden State Warriors
On the previous page there was one of the more aggressive examples of religious bigotry in a personal attack that I have seen on this site without a peep from anyone else about it. This page was all about ganging up on another poster and included a post which brought their ability as a father and used their children as a way to insult them(that poster initially mentioned that they had children in a previous post however this does not justify using that information in the way it was).
Stay classy gang.
Stay classy gang.
cartwright
Brownlow Medallist
religious bigotry?
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2010
- Posts
- 5,562
- Reaction score
- 4,524
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- MUFC, Golden State Warriors
Read page 148 of the thread. It should be pretty obvious.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2009
- Posts
- 19,916
- Reaction score
- 18,883
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Posts
- 29,863
- Reaction score
- 87,438
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Thought exactly the same thing when I read through it this morning and saw what was thrown at Lebbo73 . Totally out of control. The intolerant self-righteoussness and bigotry has reached epic proportions but they don't even see the irony of their own behaviour in relation to what they preach at every turn.
How highly would you have to think of yourself to post sanctimonious assholery like.....
**** me. Should he stand in the naughty corner as well?
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Posts
- 29,863
- Reaction score
- 87,438
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Maggie5
Moderator
- Staff
- #3,672
Given that I consider this to be a very serious topic, you apparently think it is okay to suggest that nominating areas where it may be considered unsafe stated:
I would like you to walk through them all at around midnight and then you can get back to us!
Sick humour? Perhaps you need to question yourself?
cartwright
Brownlow Medallist
The only amusing part, is the faux outrage by Pete.
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Locked
