Misogyny, Guns, Rape and Culture..

Mod Hat — On links and appearances

Part of the problem is just that most members are accustomed to putting as little effort into their posts as possible.

Then again, given that people have been reluctant to provide source citation, it's hard to imagine they will suddenly want to start citing Sciforums posts. (Personally, this is a weakness of mine insofar as I rarely if ever write works cited for posts and threads at Sciforums.)

One simple solution would be to provide some sort of marker to a previous post (↑); in this case, that marker is u2191, but others will work, too.

Also, Unicode users should be advised to execute in a text editor, or in the simple text version of the inline editor. Attempting Unicode in the rich-text editor will also execute an underline function.

Those inclined to Unicode markers might try the Unicode-Table arrow set ⟳. (That "Clockwise Gapped Circle Arrow" is u27F3.)

Sorry, I can't help Windows users with the proprietary codes; I don't use Windows unless I absolutely must. Mac users can play around with their option codes (CTRL+OPEN+keystroke). Touchscreen keyboards have some built in character options; just hold the key until the menu pops up, and there will probably be something useful in there.

Or people can just endnote their links. But pretty much any American, at least, high school age or older ought to have some idea of how to write in-line citations and works cited notes. (We generally teach MLA in middle and high schools, though colleges and universities often use others. My friends at Stanford used Chicago-Turabian, many institutions prefer Harvard, and there are actually occasions when APA is not simply useful, but specifically preferred. We're not so fussy, here, but yeah, most of us should have learned this stuff at one point or another.)

We now return you to this thread's originally-scheduled topic.

Thank you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some women may choose to modify their behavior to deal with the threat of violence towards them. They may choose to change their environment, or get training, or carry a weapon, or change what they wear. That's their decision. If Internet busybodies declare that makes those women "rape advocates" then (to use Bell's term) they can "simply go and get fucked."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

your vastly misrepresenting what's being said. nobody here has a problem with women taking steps to deal with the threat of violence. and no one has said that makes them advocates of rape. but when people demand they change their bvehaviors and not demand that rapist change theirs. and talk about how they "failed" if they didn't follow the rules than yes they are advocates for rapists. their moving the burden of preventing the rapists actions from the rapists to the victims an act that helps protect rapists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is indeed ironic how indignant you get about misrepresenting the discussion - and then immediately make a misrepresentation of your own.

No one here has said that the behavior of rapists is OK. No one. And yet that keeps coming up, as if there is someone in this argument fighting for the rights of rapists. That is a constant and blatant misrepresentation of what's going on, and has been used over and over by several people in this thread.

 

your failure to understand the point doesn't mean i misrepresented anything.

funny how you lie about me "misrepresenting" things only to misrepresent my own comments. again never said anyone here said rape was ok.

again no where did I say that people think rape is ok. quite frankly thats libel. but as i stated focusing on the victims's behavior while ignoring the perpetrators helps rapists not be punished. so yes it is rape advocacy. again lying about people what people said because you think its a women's responsibility not to be rape is really making you look bad.

so if your going to continue attacking people for believing we should be focused on stopping the perps and not making sure the victims follow the "rules" could you at least not lie while doing it?


also really going to use the phrase get fucked in a discussion about rape. when their are actually victims of sexual assault involved. that's crass and very disrespectful. not that i believe for one second you give one solitary damn about the victims here.

 

You seem obsessed with a crowd of people nowhere in evidence around here.

I agree that labeling a woman a "rape advocate" for modifying her behavior under threat of rape would be wrong and bad, but nobody has ever done anything like that around here - your posting is mysterious.

You forgot, by the way, to respond to the quote from my posting you led with. That gives the impression that the comment about those bad people who mislabel individual prudence "rape advocacy" was somehow motivated by my posting as quoted. Although that would be too stupid to be believed by anyone familiar with the thread or the forum, strangers might be misled - you might want to fix the problem.

For convenience, here is the quote you set out to respond to: "Your continuing attempts to equate "rape prevention" with women's behavior modification will continue to be met with simple denial and stonewalling. "

 

That was Bell's expression. I thought it an appropriate response to someone who thought women should not choose how to defend themselves lest they be labeled "rape advocates."

Aaaaand . . . . back to your usual attacks.

 

We Will Not Pretend Your Evil Is Good

Get honest, Bill.

You know, it seems an appropriate response to a liar.

Or would you like to try to redeem yourself?

• At what point does Infinite Prevention Advocacy become a quality of life issue?​

Remember, it's the IPAs who are telling women to plan on being sexually assaulted. You know, that they should expect it.

And we're aware it's some point of perverse pride with you and the other IPAs, but neither are we surprised that it is so hard to get IPAs to answer the question.

So enumerate all of the effective prevention advice.

Go for it. Because IPAs seem to have trouble with that. Meanwhile, we do have the prevention tips offered in the world. Things like attire and haircut as a tactic to prevent rape. You know, go out for dinner and a show, but dress to prevent rape. Or don't use a mobile phone downtown, because, well, otherwise she's not taking precautions.

The problem is that IPAs don't seem to be reading the responses. Consider an exchange I had with Randwolf, recently (pp. 17(↑)-18(↑). Setting aside the brief misunderstanding resulting from the new format in which hyperlinks are not as apparent as they used to be (hence the arrows to mark the links), note the general pattern: He bit on the IPA generalization, got clarification; we went back and forth a couple times, and it would seem we managed to achieve some degree of reconciliation between our views.

Meanwhile, IPAs such as yourself, Trooper, and Tali89 continue to dodge the issues.

You need to look at the functional result of what you're advocating and try to clarify your position.

For instance, self-defense might prevent a rape attempt from succeeding, but this says nothing about the fact that it occurred at all, a point I noted recently (↑) in discussing how the Seattle Police Department had to be shamed into going after an assailant, who in turn was actually a Level 3 sex offender; the follow-up is that more than a dozen new claims have emerged since his arrest.

You can say all you want in praise of self-defense; the victim said that her self-defense training was part of what empowered her to pursue her assailant. But it did nothing to prevent the assault, did it?

And I would suggest that in terms of rape prevention, it would probably help if the police department was actually interested in dealing with these crimes. As it is, though, SPD is notorious on this count. Late last year, a woman escaped an attempted rape, only to attempt to report the incident and have the Seattle Police Department laugh in her face.

And that is an example of the problem, Bill.

And if the answer is that women should live in fear, and plan their lives around being sexually assaulted, you're doing it wrong.

Meanwhile, the whole thing about Don Quixote tilting windmills was that it was supposed to be funny. The IPA Don Quixote routine, however, is not funny. It is grotesque. It is dangerous. And it is evil.
____________________

Notes:

Anonymous. "Thanks for Nothing, SPD". The Stranger. January 1, 2014. TheStranger.com. October 23, 2014. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/i-anonymous/Content?oid=18547746

 

that twice with that lie. no one said women who choose not to take steps to prevent them selfs. are you a pathological liar or something? also there is a vast moral difference between a victim of sexual assault using at the people attack her for not preventing her rape and you using towards actual victims of sexual assault. that you lack the intellectual and moral ability to understand the distinction is rather telling.

says the guy attacking a victim of sexual assault. I'm not attacking you. all i said it i don't believe you care about victims of rape and sexual assault because your care more about changing the victims behavior than you know getting people to you know not fucking rape people. you know cause your attacking me right now. I'm one of those victims that you and trooper claim you care so fucking much about. but all you have done is lie and misrepresent and personally attack.

 

Did you intend this to be annoying or something?

But here's the thing - whether or not that's true, and it's doubtful at best - you have no idea what I'm discussing. You make no effort at all.

NB: Ah - I see from below what your objectives and methodology has been. I'm not sure why you would cop to it, but it does explain a lot.

Oh, naturally. I mean, it's a cert that I'd waste my time formulating a huge slab of text as a solution to the cross-argument that enveloped the thread until Kitta went and banned the dissenting voices from it. Maybe you should try reading sometime instead of scan summarizing. I mean, sure, you admit that you're basically trolling below, but you could at least keep up the pretense of reasonability. And please don't start to try to use the term 'evidence' around me after you supposed that a flat "no" trumped the concept of statistical testing of claims. You don't get to make that kind of claim at this point, I'm afraid.

I suppose this is that denial you posted that you were going to engage in (see below). Are you attempting to deny that Canada's system is a "success"? Not much to go on there, really: it's certainly more successful than the American system, assuming that it is a systematic effect. Or are you denying the description of it as a "system"? Again, it's a simple case of definitions: one could call it a national effect as easily as a system. Sort of a meaningless objection, but then again I guess that's what I get for trying to be fair about this. Or why bring up the lower rates at all in conjunction with the unsupported assertion that Canadians lock their doors less? Lastly, was it you earlier that was complaining about "poor faith" arguments?

(The others may note that I've included some links here not buried in the text as tiny little arrows or slightly coloured text that I now notice: a difference to the regular text more subtle than the differences on the colour charts on my eyesight test for tank gunnery.)

Nonsense. Your thrust is that the "preventionist" approach is a waste of time, and ineffective to boot, and you retailed the idea of the superiority of the Canadian system, which you now attempt to scurry away from. Very well: I agree. I merely wish to know in which way or for what reason that is so. This is presumably more of the trolling you announce that you would engage in, below:

Surprisingly, I was attempting to reconcile the two 'sides' via a relatively simple analysis that you do not seem to have bothered to read. But the new leaps of logic you take do impress me!: I used the term "rape prevention" as nothing more than a label for the axis of posters that you claim place all demands on women's behaviour. At no time did I equate the two things - ah, but this is the trolling you state you will engage in, above, isn't it? Silly me. I thought for a moment you'd actually convinced yourself that this was what I had done, but this is just stonewalling within the admission of stonewalling. Well, whether you actually believe your concocted interpretations or are, as you admit above, merely engaging in trolling is immaterial at this point, really. I will submit the report on it, of course, and Tiassa will reject it on basis of presumed common philosophical interests. That's only a prediction, but I have great confidence therein.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This was amusing because of my own claims that I hadn't read the thread, and the list of posters bitching that I hadn't read the thread. Please: decide what it is you think or don't think I have or haven't read, and then just keep that information to yourself in perpetuity whether you elect to go with stonewalling or denial.

 

So here we go, since it's demanded by spastics: Grand Review of the thread, page 1.

I, Geoff.

The bulk of page one is the issue of guns in the American culture. In particular, Tiassa and Bells claims that there is a common gun ownership-misogynist stream of thought that draws from synonymous memes of misogyny worldwide. In India, 'wayward' women are attacked with acid. In South Africa, acid. Women are stoned or buried in the Arab world. And, the claim is made, in the United States, guns are the tools of a kind of extremely dangerous patriarchy: Eliot Rodger, to wit.

This struck me as absurd. Surely the antisocial issues with guns are the sheer bulk of an armed populace. Accidents, shootouts with the cops, domestic terrorism. Simple. Guns are not 'anti-women' objects any more than rocks or acid or shovels.

Then again, Eliot Rodger.

... I suppose there is some kind of commonality here. Specifically, I noted that Tiassa made the point that "in the US, one uses a gun". I don't think I'd read that before and I find on reflection that it seems convincing. Domestic murders are mostly gun-related. One picks up a gun, not a knife, in the US, where one has access to it. The differences are in the tools being employed for the same purpose, are they not? It does appear to present a kind of parallel at least in intent. Guns are not only for that purpose, any more than said acid or rocks: but translated among national capacities, there is a similarity of intent in their use against women. Gun owners protesting gun regulation don't necessarily fall into this presumed parallel - the difference being the tool. There are events that could be taken as representative of a misogynist perspective, however. Guns are not only that, but are all weapons necessarily of the same bent? Or is the fact of the ease of firearms especially damning in this respect?

I don't have a ton of time for this, so this is where page 1 review stops, given it's due. Since the demand for guns is, ostensibly, based in the 2nd Amendment, the critical question becomes: is the risk to American citizens presented by guns offset by the leverage the existence of these guns provides against the threat of tyrannical government?

 

The people objecting to your dishonesty are objecting to that kind of post - because it's dishonest.

Then quit using it.

You introduced the term (as a label), claimed incorrectly that its use was general or typical here (you said "is called", also an implicit claim to have read the typical posts), and continued to use it after its misleading implications were pointed out to you as not merely unassumed but the central topic of discussion here, the main matter under debate.

As a rhetorical ploy, it's called "assuming the consequent".

It's the absence of relevance that I pointed out already characterized my posting.

Nope.

An assumption I did not make.

I'm repeating the obvious: I don't care. It doesn't matter, in my posting. You can describe anything in Canada any way you want to, as long as you don't try to misrepresent my posting thereby.

I was going by these kinds of posts from you:

Come to think of it, those make more sense if you hadn't actually read any of the pages of posts you were referring to in them. I responded as if they were honest posts referring to your actual reading of the thread - more fool me, eh?

Whether or not you regard the bullshit you posted as a waste of time is your own affair, and depends on your own agenda, ewhich is beginning to smell bad. Look at this:

Bullshit. Completely unethical posting with no concern for accuracy. That's not my "thrust", and I retailed no such "idea", your use of "prevention" has been outed, and any possible genuine confusion on your part has long since been cleared up. Just take your troll reflex, go away, and gag on it.

 

Interesting - a little denial, and a little stonewalling both. Did you ever find out what an analysis was? Let me know when it's out of your system.

 

By the 2nd amendment, violent citizenry and threatening foreigners are also relevant risks - anything a militia might be called to deal with - and the government is not allowed to balance those risks anyway. So the identification of the "critical question" is contingent on who is asking, and why.

The "demand" for guns is of course not based in amendments, etc. The critical question here was starting out to be whether it was based in misogyny and resembled the desire to rape in that respect. I thought no, myself.

 

Oh, you big silly! Is this denial or stonewalling? I can't tell!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am reviewing the thread from the beginning, as was requested. If you choose not to read my comments, do not. Neither am I here to obey your whims: your insistence that no one asked for a blow-by-blow account of the thread is meaningless. Posters post on the forum. If there is no rule-based objection to the comments, there is nothing to be moderated. You may not order posters to post or not post according to your say-so without the explicit breaking of rules. You find the comments troubling? Do not engage them. You, too, are an adult - or reputedly so - and so have the ability to restrain your own expression if you think you cannot be even-minded.

I have discussed why I didn't see your links; you may choose to pretend you have not read my comments on this matter and moderate away, since your credibility is gone and I suspect that you know it. You may certainly moderate me on the initial insult: that at least, like most of the personal attacks against various posters which you have chosen to ignore, was unnecessary. In the rest however I will obey my conscience: there appears to be some pressure to have me relegated to - what's the phrase? An IPA? A "rape advocate"? - which will not be permitted.

 

Page 2. Much goodness here. Perhaps a man or a woman will read?

Charles Mudede does seem to have summed it up to some extent, although speaking casually his take is a bit on the cruel side. There’s no reason to conclude that a society is responsible for the crimes of any particular person – although negative economic and social imperatives are often cited in sentencing; this is none of my area. That we leave up the fate of our citizens to the inequities of an unevenly funded, adversarial system is statement enough on the realities of law and those who determine it in this half of the world. Mudede implies a social imperative: the failure of expectations. He “held out” and got laid. Rodger was rejected, didn’t “hold out”, and snapped.

Er.. well, anyway. Mudede’s world sounds like a dim reflection of the perspective of hellfire conservative: both parties lay full blame on the perpetrator. That’s correct, if chilly. But what else is there? The alternative is chaos.

There’s another curious area here: every person is responsible for their own actions, obviously. But is that the uniform belief of every person who reviews such cases? I think some posters here make excuses for, say, the actions of suicide bombers as a consequence of societal pressure – despite their generally being well-off and educated – but in the case of a domestic maniac such as Rodgers there is no such leeway. So which is the correct position in their view? Do they conclude that Rodger’s difficulties are trivial by comparison? This is true, so far as it goes, but then does man live by bread alone? Rejection is not nothing: this doesn’t validate Rodger, but it does say something about our society. Then again, any society will have its madmen, presumably.

I know where I stand on the issue – I appreciate the difficulties of economics, of upbringing, of opportunity, but personal responsibility must trump those or else there is conceivably chaos. What I don’t know is whether those who take up that position on Rodger take that same stance generally. Of those taking this position, who is uniform in their pronouncements? Will they say? Does the commitment to the sole responsibility of the perpetrator take a holiday in some cases? I hope not but I think that this may well be so and I’m curious to hear opinions.

(And… by the by: the above doesn’t, as I’ve taken pains to show several times, mean sympathy for murderers of women, or Rodgers, or his demands. I am – as I wrote – curious to hear opinions. No excuses for getting it wrong.)


Next set: Acuna-Sanchez. Failure of the, er, ‘justice system’. And an ignorant sheriff: gosh! I'm shocked.

At one time – I think – the ranks of the policing staff were filled… well… had some members who cared more about justice than about law. Didn’t last, did it? When I was in the army – and we were not uniformly nice either – we had a lot of scorn for cops. Cowardly was one word. Gutless. There was a spatter of respect but it was thumbnail deep: if you really wanted to do your bit by your nation, pick up a rifle, not a badge, because cops were scum, the dredge of Western society. And this was soldiers talking. The old man would lecture me on cops from time to time, and experience has supported his position. Of the two times I’ve called on a cop when I actually needed one, they have failed me – badly – both times: they pointed the finger back at me. We have a society that channels the failures, the last-chancers, the type-A power-starved types into the field of law enforcement. They’re not universally bad, but… Jesus, is this really the best we can do? These idiots? The law will jail you for not paying your taxes, but fire a warning shot over the head of an abusive husband and it’s off to jail you go.

The bottom line is concluded to be guns: this may be correct. It’s a little harder to stab people and much less popular – what it might be in fifty years is harder to say but today, what’s the alternative? Does Lautenberg work? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban; yeah, didn’t make you work for that link) It wasn’t enforced in Acuna-Sanchez. Regional problems in adherence.

Capitalism/regionalism is the final problem. Is it too far to say: “well, this is what you get on capitalism”? Because this is what you get. More and more people chasing dollars in a shrinking manufacturing base, carrying out duties with varying interest in the face of new and unanticipated social demands and a legal industry that complicates matters while it eases them: on the one hand it giveth and with the other it taketh. A hydra. So laws are ignored. Regional compliance is low. Universality, impossible. Social justice, inconceivable. But you’ll take their guns long before you wean them off capitalism.

Still, the US sticks out in terms of ownership, irresponsibility and bloodshed. One is forced to conclude by asking: Is there another tenable proximal conclusion than that better gun regulation must surely be uniformly good? Is there? Neither is there a realistic defense of existing laws: regulation will not remove your protections against Washington, or the day that Bigfoot and ET finally decide that they have something in common against the human race after all. Iceaura claims not to be arguing against regulation, and I don’t see anything that says that he is. Again: cross-talking on SF. The NRA is ridiculous and dangerous; goes without saying, really. Is their evident bias fuel for the accusation that this is a form of misogyny? … it’s conceivable, certainly. The discussion at post #34 deviates into a critique of the “protectionist” concept as defined, but the links aren’t strong enough to make such a leap. One sympathizes with the aggressive stance of gun control advocates: Iceaura wants the other side to back down so that guns can be controlled. It has a defensive tone. I don’t know that ceasing the rhetoric will allow a smoother transition. Political pressure should be brought. I don’t see the control side as pushing for universal bans; not even their own members would support it, surely. “Nanny state” is a bit of a misnomer as a critique, with 30,000 gun deaths in the US in 2010.

(By the by, I’d always thought that Remo Williams quote was “in-out, like the Dark Mating”; a kind of shadow Ganymede, of evil lusts. But apparently it was about ducks. Well, whatever. I don’t like the simile; ducks generally go a bit longer and a lot less ninjalike – think more flap-flap-scream-bite and less leaping silently from above – so far as I’ve seen.)

One is forced – however against one’s wishes – to conclude that Tiassa has a point.

And yes, you may bookmark this.

Onward. Eventually. When I recover from the shock.

 

That is old hat. Like the tomato said to his splattered boy: catch up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Old hat.

I'm getting to those, but iceaura said I should start at the beginning, and I damn well am going to.

Oh? Whose time am I wasting, exactly? Is there some kind of radical GeoffP supporter forcing you to read my screeds at gunpoint? Are you addicted to my work? Please: tell me who is making you do this, and how I can get them to stop.

If you're counting yourself as "staff and member" then I guess this is so. However, I'm not flaming the thread. I'm examining your arguments, as you insist that I do. Instead of complaining, why don't you try reading the comments? Nothing is being flamed. Nothing is being trolled. Nor am I going to treat every single post in the thread. I am being quite fair-minded. This is discussion. Open eyes. Recognize.