zapatos

Well, I realize this probably isn't what they meant exactly, but between John and iNow, it was pretty close: The latter quote was in response to me saying " whenever there is a suggestion that the overall situation is more nuanced than simply predator/prey, there seems to be a tendency to ignore the practical in favor of the ideal. A woman who ignores risk because it's "not fair" is not the same as a seal who has no choice but to swim in the same waters as sharks."

Personally I think they are too weak or too dependent on people who have an interest in keeping things quiet. Young girls should not have to decide whether or not a doctor's 'treatment' is appropriate; maybe something more concrete, like requiring a woman appropriately trained to be there for all treatments. You shouldn't have to count on someone with a vested interest in the alleged perpetrator decide how to deal with a sexual harassment claim. Or more than tolerance, such as actively supporting the prick. Yeah, that's a pretty accurate assessment. I blame it on my Boy Scout training. I agree that taking the offense is a good thing, but I feel the offense will be most effective if done by the potential victims. There are laws on the books and plenty of us offering support from the sidelines, but if the woman doesn't feel empowered and confident in taking action the moment it occurs I don't have much confidence of success. Someone has to call out the crime, loud and clear, and know that help will be on the way.

Clearly there is no point in continuing this conversation.

No, I didn't. Please pay attention. I said "I choose not to let the dregs of this world determine what I can and cannot discuss". Basically the complete opposite of what you 'think' I said.

Personally I wish everyone would get away from the "dress modestly" theme as I find it to be a waste of time as well as a misrepresentation of what I've suggested. Putting mechanisms in place to educate young gymnasts and other women in similar circumstances, clear and effective ways to report abuse, understanding who is most vulnerable, support for those who choose to speak out, a public debate on sexual messaging in the media, etc. will in my mind address areas of weakness and deliver concrete results. As you wish. From you of course! When you suggested that perhaps it was not a good idea to discuss how women can avoid risk by saying "And it therefore doesn't matter what your intent is, or how carefully you word stuff, what they will hear is "she shouldn't have dressed like a slut". As I said, I am not going to quit talking about it just because of how some criminal might use my words to justify his actions. You swing back and forth from honest discussion to trolling faster than anyone I've ever seen.

I didn't withdraw from that one because I never said it or implied it. I'm sorry you misunderstood what I was saying.

I do. I recognize that is how people are perceiving this and I've been trying to change that perception all along. It feels to me like people have preconceived notions about what will work and what is worthwhile delving into (and those notions do NOT include actions women can/should take). I feel like half my time has been spent trying to discuss how to avoid being a victim, and the other half defending myself or why I think it is okay to discuss this. Also keep in mind that I am not bringing up this line of thought among a bunch of misogynists (well, maybe I am, what do I know) but on a site that prides itself on taking an unbiased, honest look at difficult subjects. It feels to me like the assumption is not that I want to explore this topic because of honest reasons, but because of my underlying misogyny. Only as much as my thoughts on how to avoid being a victim of financial crimes lends tacit support to financial criminals. I don't see a big difference. Because I have not once suggested women not wear short skirts, I never claimed the victims were at fault (and in fact stated just the opposite on more than one occasion), I am criticized for not allowing my (fictitious) daughter to be a victim so that someone else doesn't have to be, I've been told I don't think women should be allowed to be themselves, among other things. Yet if you go back and read my posts I think what you'll find is that all I've really done is suggest there is more than one way to keep women (and men) from getting hurt and it would behoove us to explore those options. That sounds probable. Although I doubt they needed to hear me say 'women should be careful' to assign blame to the women. On the other hand, I choose not to let the dregs of this world determine what I can and cannot discuss. I will no more avoid discussing solutions for potential victims of sexual crimes than I will avoid discussing solutions for potential victims of financial crimes. I'm curious as to what other crimes we avoid talking about with respect to steps people can take to avoid being victims for fear of how the criminals will interpret those conversations.

By failing to read what I've written or engage in honest dialogue you are wasting my time.

Sorry I'm not the man you thought I was. I didn't realize the onus was on me to have the answers and to have presented them by this stage of the discussion. Yes, I have an idea why. In the case of the young gymnasts it was in part because they did not have the maturity to distinguish between assault and what the person in authority told them was standard "treatment" that was in their best interest. At least that's what they said. I agree. It is a difficult situation for women. If that were true, then nearly every woman at the festival would have been assaulted. You might want to rethink that assertion.

Sorry... I hope not. Certainly not from my perspective. I certainly don't pretend to have all the answers so I don't know how well this works, but I've heard of women who make sure to tell friends of their plans, send their friends pics of the guys license plate, do Google searches, meet the guy instead of having him pick you up, meet with friends, etc., and then letting the man know that others know who they are with. While it certainly won't eliminate risk, it may make the man think twice about his actions, or to give him opportunity prior to the woman getting to know him better. You should expect that it is more likely than if you were fully clothed.

Agreed. It is ridiculous that a doctor you go to for help might molest you. Unfortunately, the world is a dangerous place full of assholes. Let's not let our daughters get molested because ideally we would like her to be safe all the time and therefore don't take simple precautions. Great questions! Glad you are joining in the discussion! Excellent idea! Unfortunately I don't share your confidence. These women for the most part did not complain, and neither did many of the women now speaking out in the #MeToo movement. All people who are exposed to risk should be aware of that risk and consider what if any risk mitigation is appropriate for them in their particular circumstances. Mitigating risk can be done not only by trying to remove the risk (the assholes) but also by avoiding the risk and responding to risk effectively.

No, I am not.

Actually my point so far has been that most people did NOT ask the questions you just asked, but were instead reluctant to discuss it as we were perceived as simply making excuses, living in the dark ages, blaming the victim, wasting everyone's time, etc. I believe that the goal is to reduce the overall problem, and that can be better achieved not by just going after the perpetrator, but by considering the problem from the perspective of the victim. Reduce the likelihood of an incident occurring, and develop and implement effective strategies to minimize the impact when they do occur. Many people, young ones in particular, and not educated on how to deal with these complex situations that lead to assault. Look at the the US women's gymnastics team for example. A doctor molested dozens of young women, who by their own admission did not understand or know how to respond to the situation. Educating young people like this who are removed from the protection of their parents to recognize and avoid situations where that can occur is likely to have a positive impact. A more complex situation is the mixed signals sent out by some celebrities. Telling women to not allow themselves to be treated like sex objects, might be followed the next day by going out in public without underwear and flashing your hoohah. How do men react to that? How do young women react to that? Is that unknowingly putting young ladies at risk who might be tempted to do the same? It's just a thought, but I think we can come up with dozens of examples like this where a little risk mitigation can go a long way.

You have discouraged or tried to redirect the conversation away from risk mitigation suggesting it was not appropriate. Sorry, I don't remember seeing that question before. I am confident this will not all go away if women simply do a better job of avoiding dark allies and miniskirts. My position is that we should discuss all aspects of this issue and the circumstances surrounding it with the goal of reducing the problem. Yes, I know there will be just as many bad people. So you want me to tell my daughter to throw caution to the wind and take one for the team? You can treat your kids like cannon fodder; I choose another approach. And I doubt you ever will. Ask your wife, or any woman, if she is more likely to be harassed in a mini-skirt and with cleavage or in sweats. Or if drunk college men are more likely to harass than sober college men. Or if she is more likely to receive unwanted stares going bra less. The fact that you don't seem to know these things makes me feel you are out of touch. Ah, EFFECTIVE training. Of course. I thought it was that she had to be acting in an official capacity for her to have "been trained", but now I see that you have not been trained if it was not EFFECTIVE. Like I wasn't actually trained in CPR because when I used it the guy died. Thanks for clearing that up John. You are a fountain of information. Yes, I think that's been pretty well established by now.

Why can we not discuss it if it doesn't address the broader issue? Why can't the nuances be discussed? For the life of me I cannot understand why some aspects of this issue are verboten. It is not as if sexual assault will continue until we reach consensus in this thread. There should be NOTHING that cannot be discussed. As far as the 'massive area of required focus', almost all of our discussion centers not around how women address risk, but around whether or not we are allowed to discuss how women address risk and what that says about us. And at the risk of opening another bone of contention, I don't really agree that these scenarios are all that uncommon'. As the father of two twenty-something boys I've had a lot of exposure to the behavior of young ladies. The risks they take with their behavior are mind boggling and quite common. The stories of passing out in frat houses, unprotected sex with strangers, and taking their clothes off at parties makes my skin crawl.

I suspect it will hurt at least as much as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

Despite being framed as a non-sequitur and an attempt to blame the victim, yes. That’s exactly what’s happening. You've been much more reasonable, at least explaining why you don't think it should be discussed in this thread and asking for arguments. But the stream of logical fallacies used to discredit any attempt at taking the contrary position by myself and others is ridiculous. How many times are you going to misrepresent how I and others feel about the perpetrator's responsibility? If you keep ignoring certain parts of what is being said we are never going to have a meaningful dialogue.

To me it smacks of allowing emotion to override open discussion. I have seen dozens if not hundreds of conversations on this site where what was perceived as a totally ludicrous assertion was debated openly and in earnest. Rather than saying "we shouldn't discuss that", people would instead explain with vigor why the assertion was wrong. The very first thread I opened on this site was on the topic of whether or not atheists fought fair. The reason I opened the thread was because it appeared to me that the rules of debate and evidence followed by many on this site when debating a scientific topic, were dramatically modified once we started discussing topics that included more emotion. My opinion on how people behave with respect to debate on this site has not changed significantly.

I've been wondering something similar. How could a suggestion that people limit their exposure to risky situations generate so much controversy? I feel like had someone responded with "well, yeah, of course you should limit your exposure to risky situations", then that portion of this discussion would have been over.

We are applauding them for standing up to a system that has long put them in harm's way. Look at the #metoo movement. Look at the support they are receiving in this thread. People are stepping all over themselves, from politicians to celebrities to people like us, praising and supporting these women who are risking themselves and their livelihoods to take on the trolls who feel they can abuse women and get away with it. I'm a bit disappointed that on a site like this we are unable to look at any other aspect of sexual harassment without it being suggested we are somehow part of the problem rather than the solution. As I am seen as not affording women the same respect and latitude that I do to civil rights activists, I can only conclude that I have failed completely in my ability to communicate effectively.

So you are saying they trained them to not lose their jobs or get threatened? Otherwise I don't know how you can make the claim that the training did not work. I'd like to see a citation on that please. I've never seen it said or implied anywhere that they were trained not to lose their jobs or get threatened except by you. I certainly never made such a claim. So she attended a school for training activists, but because she acted as a private citizen, you feel that means she wasn't meaningfully trained? If she had been acting in an official capacity, would that have suddenly made her training meaningful? I've seen better arguments made by religious fundamentalists. As is your M.O. you seem to just be looking to pick a fight rather than engage in any meaningful discussion. You should get your hearing checked. Seriously, you are way off the mark here. No one here has said anything even remotely close to that. Perhaps you should criticize MigL for statements he actually makes, instead of those you anticipate he might make.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks I'm not sure what you are asking. As you say, she did receive death threats and lose her job. Why do you think the training helped her NOT get death threats or lose her job?!?! LOL!

I'm glad you used the examples of Rosa Parks and the lunch counter incidents. First I have to say that there is little that generates more respect in me than for someone who puts themselves at risk for what they know to be 'the right thing'. I am in awe of such people. In the cases of Rosa Parks and those at the lunch counters, those were not people who threw safety to the wind because they were just tired or hungry. They were all trained activists performing calculated, risky activities meant to further their goal. They are akin to soldiers going into battle, entering a risky situation but taking what steps can be taken to minimize risk. I would never be critical of the actions taken by Rosa Parks and those sitting at the lunch counters and wish I could have been there to support them. But at the same time I would be critical of a black man in the South in the '50s who flirted with a white woman in public. There is no reason to take that risk, simply based on the ideal that no harm should come to him.

Yes, I want us to keep saying that the woman shouldn't have worn the short skirt, and to make life easier for the bad people. You hit the nail on the head.

Because there are bad people in the world who are in charge of their own dicks and choose to use them for evil. It is naive to think otherwise. Well, you focus on the future, and I'll split my focus between the future and today. We both have the same goal, we just disagree on what actions should be taken until we arrive.