But you have created some strawmen that don't exist, so taking those down does not refute OP's point.
originally posted by: SprocketUKIt's about a person's right to walk down a busy street unmolested.
1. Sure. Mugging and rape are both crimes. Did anybody say they weren't crimes? They're already crimes. Nobody disputes this. I have never seen
anybody dispute this.
2. There is this idea that expecting anybody to be responsible with consideration for 'reality' and 'their well-being' somehow is "excusing" someone
else's criminal behavior. It is never doing that.
We teach children to "look both ways" when crossing the street even in a crosswalk, even though "the law" says if they're in the crosswalk they have
the right-of-way. Because we want them to be safe. NOT because drivers are less responsible for following traffic laws. Not because their jaywalking
or being small would make a driver 'less' responsible. But because we want the child to be safe.
Why can't we want women to be safe and if we do, can't we at least teach them the equivalent of looking both ways, rather than spending all the
focus-time on how unfair it is that some small % of drivers don't look for people in the crosswalk? I mean we can work on educating drivers all day
but can't we also work on educating the people who walk?
Yet by the approach taken by gender-feminism (not equality-feminism, the other branch which is diff), if we ever suggest a person look both ways and
not enter the crosswalk unless it's safe, we are somehow magically removing responsibility from any driver that might run them over. That's
ridiculous. It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE to say that one person is responsible for their own well-being without diminishing the full responsibility of a
crime against them as being the criminal's fault.
Also: criminal rapists know rape is wrong. "Teaching men that rape is wrong" is the stupidest, most insulting thing ever -- I never met a man who did
not know that rape was wrong. What is really meant is "teaching criminals to just say no!" -- good luck with that. But all men are not criminals.
By even considering there is some merit to the idea a woman bears a small responsibility for the crime that is committed against her by not
covering up we give credence to the moronic elements that perpetuate these crimes.
I don't understand what part of the mind cannot separate these two things of responsibility for a crime vs. responsibility for oneself. Everyone has
the 'right' to be anywhere public, dress like anything, but in the real world, some % of the population are criminals. They are responsible for their
criminal acts, whether they are mugging a man for his rolex or raping a woman for her body. The crime is theirs. This is never in doubt, the
responsibility for the crime is not mitigated by anything the victim does.
But this endless whining for how reality "should" be doesn't change the reality of humanity. I don't consider us in a rape culture, I consider us in a
human culture where every form of rape, robbery, and other forms of "forced competition" have always (and probably will always) exist. Whether in the
jungle, the industrial age or the modern city, these things have always been with us. Endless head-battering about "oh, the unfairness that the world
in this area can't be totally crime-free no matter what!" is so useless and even harmful to those we're not educating to AVOID crime -- as if their
becoming responsible for themselves, for avoiding it where it's a higher likelihood than most situations, would somehow make criminals less
The responsibiity of a criminal for a crime is one thing and is not mitigated by anything the victim does.
The responsibility for intelligent self-protective behavior of every kind -- and avoidance of situations highly likely statistically to include
mugging or rape at some point eventually -- is a totally separate thing.
These things co-exist in parallel. One does not reduce or inflate the other.
The idea of a rape culture probably stems from a generalised view of a rape victim as always having done something wrong. Either she was too
pretty, dressed provocatively, too friendly, too drunk too anything.
Well in the modern truly hysterical and blanket-brush-as-all-men-as-criminal social activism, I think it stems from modern gender-feminism being
convinced that women have no responsibility for themselves, and that expecting them to take responsibility for their own well-being would be an
unreasonable hardship, and would magically make criminals "less" criminal.
More people need to understand what a scummy subhuman act rape is.
But see you just jumped back to the strawman again.
Who ever said rape wasn't bad? Who? Where?
That isn't what the feminists are saying because EVERYONE is saying that even men.
In any population some small % of people are criminals and statistically, if you are in social settings that either have many people or that are known
to draw the kind of people (criminals) you don't want, one should be wary and perhaps avoid those situations altogether or take some other steps for
(For example I saw recently a kind of underwear that literally cannot be gotten through, around, or removed, without the woman's participation.
Awesome. See, this is intelligent, proactive planning to enable women to go into even the more dangerous situations (e.g. drunken frat parties) and be
safer. More power to the young women who developed that.) But that really is merely another form of "self-protection" -- good! Also avoiding dark
streets while wearing a rolex, and frat parties at all let alone while dressed sexily, might also be self-protective and good.
Culturally we are never discussing whether rape is ok because it's never ok. We are never discussing whether any element of the victim makes a
criminal less responsible for being a criminal because they are always 100% responsible for their criminal behavior.
edit on 14-4-2016 by RedCairo because: messed up quote bracket