Feminism makes a lot more sense when you realize that it's about hating men (especially white men) and not about helping women. Maybe some of the rank and file care about helping women but the elites that work as journalists, professors, and organization chairs mostly don't.

That's why feminists don't care about how women in the muslim world are treated but they complain about men taking up too much space on subways.

The whole point of this rape stuff is to tar men with a blood libel, not to stop rape.

It's useless to debate feminists or try to convince them they are wrong. The best thing to do is to educate the public about how evil feminism is and try to cut off funding to women's studies departments.

I also think feminism is largely sexual in motivation. Meaning that a lot of the movement is made up of ugly women who have resentments against men; and also a lot of the hate toward men is fueled by disgust at unattractive men. Think of an ugly women who resents the fact that the hot guys ignore her and only ugly losers ask her out.

> Think of an ugly women who
> resents the fact that the hot
> guys ignore her and only ugly
> losers ask her out.

Why?

I'm not sure why you think feminism is against teaching self-defense. A lot of the comminication stuff was covered in my self-defense class in the 90s at my feminist school

I'm not sure why you think feminism is against teaching self-defense. A lot of the comminication stuff was covered in my self-defense class in the 90s at my feminist school

NicoleK at April 1, 2019 1:19 AM

I think feminism does not teach women *effective* self defense, and more importantly how not to put yourself in a position where you might need self defense. Like don’t leave the bar drunk on your ass at two in the morning alone.... They are too busy manufacturing victims. It is better for their business.

Because frankly hand to hand against any male over 14 is a losing fight for 99 percent of women.

I wondered if there was going to be a post like this coming up when I read about the South Carolina college student who was murdered when she was, most likely, too drunk to realize that the sedan which stopped to pick her up, was not the Uber that she had called.

> too drunk to realize that
> the sedan which stopped to
> pick her up, was not the
> Uber that she had called.

Hadn't heard of that one.

I'm not a rape-targetable young woman, but for the last five-ish years, Lyft has been a tremendous blessing for trips to LAX. For a number of those trips, the drivers have been young blacks and other minority women.... Who'd never driven a cab in the fifty years of taxi-riding theretofore. It was great this work had been made available to them! Their customers are reliably identified by credit cards on file, and the customers can be rated by the company for safe demeanor no less reliably than can the drivers...

...Whose car models/makes, license plates, and smiling faces are seen by the customer on the phone when the ride is booked. Shame to have been too drunk to notice.

Anyway, apparently the Uber's and Lyft's have run out of venture capitalist money as the foundation of their economics, and the (affordable) miracle will evaporate later this year. It was great for everyone for as long as it lasted, and we'd not be surprised to see any revitalized taxis of the old school compelled to offer similarly reliable demonstration of identity for drivers, and maybe customers.

[Modern] Feminism makes a lot more sense when you realize that it's about hating men (especially white men) and not about helping women. ~ Jewish Cat at April 1, 2019 12:32 AM

Listened to a feminist expounding on Joe Biden and men on one of the news shows this morning. It is amazing how much of modern feminism is packaged as resentment.

Telling someone to take precautions to ensure their own safety invariably brings accusations of "blaming the victim."

Several years ago, I was following a comic strip called Luann and there was a love triangle between Luann's brother Brad DeGroot, his love interest Toni Daytona and her abusive boyfriend Dirk.

At Comics.com, I pointed out that Toni had said (after Dirk assaulted Brad at his Fireman's Academy graduation) that she was done with Dirk for good.

Some months later, Toni made a total ass of herself by not only allowing Dirk back into her life (even though she was no longer seeing him), thereby forcing Brad to either call the police or be in violation of his own restraining order that he took out against Dirk, but she also chided Brad for even suggesting that he call the police.

And Toni is a firefighter. Granted, she's not a cop, but as a civil servant, she ought to show a certain measure of respect for someone's restraining order, especially since she was an eyewitness to the events that prompted Brad to obtain one in the first place.

When I pointed all this out, the ear-piercing shrieks of "blaming the victim" came out. Never mind that Toni wasn't even trying to keep Dirk out of her life, as she promised -- things might be different if she had told Dirk to leave and he refused -- she actually forbade Brad from calling the police because Dirk was in violation of his restraining order, and insisted Brad just leave Dirk alone, like this is all Brad's fault.

Now that I think about this, the only one guilty of "blaming the victim" is Toni herself. Brad was assaulted by Dirk and now Toni is faulting him for wanting to enforce his own restraining order.

But I've noticed that this has become popular. Any suggestion of poor choices which makes a person more vulnerable to assault is "blaming the victim."

Instead of teaching men to respect women, the program teaches women to live in a world where sexual assault is an unavoidable reality.

These are not mutually exclusive. One can teach (or, better, model) respect for women while teaching women general risk reduction.

"As a friend of mine once said, 'If you’re pushing a woman to change her behavior to "prevent" rape, rather than telling a perpetrator to change his, you’re really saying, "Make sure he rapes the other girl."' There will always be another girl at the bar," Dana Bolger, a co-founder of Know Your IX, which advocates for sexual assault victims on campus, wrote on Feministing.

But you can't always control what happens to others as much as you can what happens to you. There always will be a mugger, for instance; I can't wave a wand and make mugging disappear, but I can take steps to ensure that I'm not the one who's mugged.

In a world obsessed with "self-care," I don't know why this would be controversial.

@Patrick: That Luann-thread was just Toni running a variation on the "Let's you and him fight" game. All that is fair in the neo-feminist world. But, it's all fun and games until someone gets raped or killed.

I don't know why this would be controversial.
________________________________________________

What's controversial is blurring the line between crimes of profit and crimes of non-profit.

I'd be terrified to go to Miami. Or Mexico. Or to go almost anywhere in a big city after a certain hour. So I don't. But I'd be afraid primarily for my wallet.

Any woman would rather be warned than not warned. It's all in HOW it's phrased. I learned (from reading a book that I picked up on my own) how serial predators tend to operate and I based my future actions on that.

But we wouldn't dream of talking as if white-on-black violence is just as "natural" as theft. Think of the reaction. What's the difference when it comes to a date who doesn't believe unwanted sex exists?

should not be

> It is amazing how much of
> modern feminism is packaged
> as resentment.

Those offended by it seem to have some dark energy of their own, as does "Jewish Cat". Quoting again the thought he most wanted to summon in our hearts, offering as his sign-off:

> Think of an ugly women who
> resents the fact that the hot
> guys ignore her and only ugly
> losers ask her out.

That's a crazy thing to ask of strangers. "Ugly losers"! This guy is from a harsh planet, but it doesn't look like ours.

The "coddling" of Haidt and Lukinoff only seems to have blossomed in a single generation… Its twitchy, oblivious bloodline thrived across our lifetimes and a good bit earlier. In a rich country of such tremendous safety, there have always been provincial, incurious spirits unschooled in both the mechanics and fleshy arts of gratitude — They'll presume they've earned their comfort as a function of the natural order. Tales of the disarray and danger which peek through their windows like sunlight around thermal curtains threaten not just the integrity of their worldview, but their presumptions of merit unleavened by adventure and experience. Truth mocks them; it's rilly icky.

It was like that in the sixties, too. I was raised by a feminist woman, perhaps the finest (of each) I've ever known. When I'd read the silliness (Bicycle Fish!) in "Ms.," etc, I'd think WT actual F? in a fifth-grade kind of way, and then note that the feminist on the mailing label found no interest in such things. Her life was about real challenges, not smirking presumptions.

Americans have always been a little weak in the comprehension (and even observation) of the suffering of others. Having exited middle age, I'm tempted to assume (as almost certainly said in earlier comments) that these numbnut kidpunks are importing the foolishness and misery of the Third World because they don't have enough in their American lives, but having been rewarded with inexpensive fulfillment so thoroughly, they're unwilling to pay the high price of going outside to collect their own.

But, so, yeah, no... Your contenders in such things will always look freshly foolish. But we flatter ourselves by presuming our challenges are novel.



Additionally, I STILL think Duke, lead by Coach K and Zion, will take the championship. They're just too strong.

Yes yes, I know. Still

Pooched the metaphor, do that a lot.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANT

>>The differences could seem dramatic: 42 women in the group that read brochures reported being raped in the year after the study began..

So this study is claiming that the incidence rate for rape has increased 2X+ since the 1 in 5 rate claimed in the 90's ( which was 1:5 over at least 4 years ). Now we can expect 40%+ of college women to be raped, and up to 80% of postgrads??

I think it's more likely that the researchers were a bunch of rapists who tricked women into giving them their personal information.

More seriously, the criminology of sexual assault has been studied pretty extensively and it doesn't support the claims or prescriptions of rape culturists. This is why you don't see criminologists, law enforcement, or sexual violence prevention orgs like RAINN endorsing such programs or promoting their claims.

Rapists are characterized by their abnormal psychology and high rate of recidivism. They are not simply normal guys who weren't taught that sexual assault is bad.

But I think that Rape Culture Feminists actually know that. They're simply using the term rape to stun people into accepting their claims that heterosexual sexuality is inherently damaging and abusive and that men are the perpetrators of that abuse.

But I'd be afraid primarily for my wallet.
___________________________________________

I was in a rush. I should have said "afraid for my wallet AND afraid of the possibility of losing my life to a robber who didn't want any witnesses."

Also, it seems to me that we'd make far more progress on the alcohol factor if parents and teachers everywhere would just focus, when talking to teens, on the Non-Political Reasons not to get stone-drunk in general. Isn't it true that for a couple of decades after 1980, at least, the rate of binge-drinking went way up, for who knows how many reasons? (But chances are, none of those reasons were really about teens wanting to appear mature. Why didn't they care about that?)

I didn't drink as a teen mainly because I liked solitude and I was picky about whom I considered a real friend and what I considered to be a good time. Also, ever since age 18 or so, the only parties I've liked were QUIET parties - as in, dinner parties. (Preferably ones where people don't use loud voices constantly at the table, with or without laughs.) This was reinforced by the fact that in my extended family, having three glasses of wine at a huge, merry meal was one thing, but getting VISIBLY drunk just wasn't done, and people still managed to have a good time. (Also, no one would have accused any relative of mine of being dull or boring.)

Bottom line: Maturity, whether in terms of behavior or clothes, hasn't been in vogue for decades in the US. It's time to bring it back.

Not to mention that binge drinking is dangerous for boys too - for more than one reason. Or two. Or three. So again, why not take a more subtle approach in general with regard to alcohol in particular?

> I didn't drink as a teen mainly
> because I liked solitude and
> I was picky about whom I
> considered a real friend and
> what I considered to be a good
> time. Also, ever since age 18
> or so, the only parties I've
> liked were QUIET parties - as
> in, dinner parties. (Preferably
> ones where people don't use
> loud voices constantly at the
> table, with or without laughs.

Can I date your Mom?

Regarding adjacent topics—— Here's a fun new Haidt video.

(His parts start at 27 mins. If you're still reading comments under this blog post, you recognize the problem.)

From Ruth Bell's "Changing Bodies, Changing Lives," page 130, if anyone insists (to my annoyance, this teen-aimed book is not something you can read online, even partially):

"Who Is a Rapist?

"It is very difficult to define the kind of man who rapes. Most studies are done on men in prison who are called chronic rapists - men who rape over and over again. These studies show that most men who rape are not crazy or even mentally ill. Rather rapists appear to be 'normal' by society's standards. What seems common to all rapists, however (and this includes men who get involved in acquaintance rape situations), is that they have a lack of self-confidence and self-understanding. Many rapists come from families where they were beaten or humiliated or sexually abused as children.

"Also, people who rape generally have poor communication skills. They do not know how to communicate what they want or need from a situation. And perhaps most important, men who rape cannot see women as human beings. They see women only as sex objects or 'cunts' or 'whores.' "

(end of excerpt)

So if even serial rapists are not, as a rule, mentally ill, what does that say about all the men who forced a crying woman into sex "only" once or twice in a lifetime?

And, from 1997(?)

“There is simply no evidence, save the rape itself,” Katharine Baker writes in the Harvard Law Review, “suggesting that all or even most rapists are objectively depraved.”

And if Amy - or anyone else here - still thinks that "Good men do not have to be 'taught not to rape,' the same as they do not need to be taught not to rob banks or beat up old people," please consider that that's like saying "we don't have to teach teens not to drink and drive and kill people, because even 10-year-olds understand why the drunk driving laws exist."

Yes, 10-year-olds do understand. Trouble is, teens are not ten-year-olds.

I thought I was about to get kicked off. To expand:

Any ten-year-old boy might nod unquestioningly when told that unwanted, forced sex isn't just gross, it's a felony that demands prison time. That does not, unfortunately, mean that the same boy will have the same sense as a teen. Chances are, he'll start thinking "wait a minute - there's no such THING as unwanted sex! Any fool my age knows that! Therefore, all these laws are completely bogus - and unfair! Why should I take them seriously? What jury would convict me anyway - especially if she and I had consensual sex the day before the 'rape'?"

Of course, gay boys understand all too well that unwanted sexual attention is real, since, from age 12 or so onward, many of them get that unwanted attention from girls. Heterosexual boys aren't as aware. That's why it should be mandatory for adults to ask those boys "how would you feel if a man you trusted tried to force himself on you?"

Crid - you're sharp.

Sadly, my mother died some years ago - in her 60s.

And while she had plenty of serious faults (her younger sister, whom everyone adores, once said "nobody willingly lives with her"), I am overall very glad to have had her as a mother, since she was very big on manners and appearances - not to mention the importance of being well read. Also, she taught me, through actions rather than words, that there's bad snobbery and good snobbery, just as there are bad and good bacteria.

Example: One does not look down on people who never finished high school, since, for all you know, they HAD to drop out to support their parents. However, that doesn't change the fact that bathing is better than not bathing (so it's perfectly fair for your classmates and others to shun you if you don't bathe), good manners are better than bad manners (even when that means having to make the sacrifice of going into sub-zero temperatures every time you want a cigarette - again, people have the right to shun you if you won't do that), and reading newspapers is better than getting all your news from TV.

Not to mention that if you're a teen and you can understand why your parents won't let you stay in a school where half the kids are dropping out, even if you have dear friends there, you can also understand why your parents might prefer that you choose friends who actually care not just about their grades and their futures, but about reading For Fun, even though that's clearly time-consuming - and typically solitary. I.e., that's not bad snobbery.

Lenona did you actually transcribe that Ruth Bell quote by hand? ;)

I'm not sure that she or Katherine Baker would actually disagree with my characterization. But I shouldn't have used the term 'abnormal psychology' as that has a specific clinical meaning. Rather think of it as a disturbed or deviant psychology. And a quick review of the literature will confirm that.

Also you'll be interested to see that Katherine Bell agrees with me about the purposes of this campaign and that it's not really about rape - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2579866

Lenona did you actually transcribe that Ruth Bell quote by hand? ;)
_________________________________

Yes and no. It's from an old thread - but back then, I did type it out.

I’ve never had a problem with prevention-based advice as long as it’s useful.

Problem is, much of it isn’t. I have particular disdain for a lot of self-defense courses. Some are great. But I swear if I see another “rape prevention” course at a fly-by-night Krav school ...

I have years of BJJ training (which I’ve never pretended would save me, I do it for fun). But I had a friend take a 2-month “women’s self defense” course and was going on about how “strong” and “invincible” she felt. And I offered to attack her and told her to respond with her training, no need to hold back, I can handle myself. I had her down, pinned and near tears in 10 seconds and she outweighs me by 40 lbs (I’m a woman who weighs 115 soaking wet) without using anything fancy — just managed to get behind her and pull her to the ground. No way would she have survived against a man who actually wanted to harm her or who had a weapon. The only course I’d have respect for is one that pits women against a guy and doesn’t make him hold back or wear squishy sumo clothing. Women need to see and feel the harm a guy (even in their own weight class) can do.

That said, I think assertiveness training is a fine idea. I’m sad to say it took me rather a long time to make my auto-response to handsiness, sexual pressure and low-key predatory behavior NOT “laugh awkwardly step back, repeat, and hope he gets the hint.” Saying, “I’m not into this. I am leaving” followed by “Seriously, stop touching me” and walking away needs to be normalized. And some people need drilling to make that their default.

"we don't have to teach teens not to drink and drive and kill people, because even 10-year-olds understand why the drunk driving laws exist."

Yes, 10-year-olds do understand. Trouble is, teens are not ten-year-olds.
________________________________

Forgot to say: Teens often tell themselves: "I drive better when I've had a few drinks, so the law doesn't apply to me - and adults should stop lying about that."

Not to mention, to add what I said in my first post: Can you imagine the reaction if cops went on the local news before a big holiday weekend and coldly told SOBER drivers to stay off the road?

Not that I blame anyone for urging a loved one not to drive on such a weekend, but there's still a very good reason cops don't say that, on TV.

I'd like to see the need for assertiveness brought up in the current discussion of Biden's behavior. He's been inappropriate with a lot of women and apparently not one has turned to him, at least in public, and said, "Keep your hands to yourself" or "Please don't do that."

Women who put up with behavior like that should ask themselves, "What am I afraid of? Of being seen as 'not nice'? Of embarrassing this man who shouldn't be doing what he's doing?"

Learning to say no to not-so-terrible stuff like Biden's shoulder-grabbing and hair-sniffing is good practice for declining an invitation to go back to the dorm room of a guy you've known for 20 minutes or saying, "I'll take the next one" to a guy in an elevator who gives off a bad vibe.

Say, Lenona. What about the women who rape? Hmmmm?

Should girls be taught not to f*ck their adolescent and pre-adolescent students? Not to force men to penetrate (often with the threat of a false rape allegation)? Not to take advantage of incapacitated men (like Amy Schumer and Cardi B?)

You also neglected to note that most of the serial rapists were abused as little boys -- by WOMEN.

Well?

Or do your coins, as with so many of your ilk, only have one side?

That said, I think assertiveness training is a fine idea. I’m sad to say it took me rather a long time to make my auto-response to handsiness, sexual pressure and low-key predatory behavior NOT “laugh awkwardly step back, repeat, and hope he gets the hint.” Saying, “I’m not into this. I am leaving” followed by “Seriously, stop touching me” and walking away needs to be normalized. And some people need drilling to make that their default.

The security expert Gavin de Becker says this is a very conscious attempt to check boundaries.

Men don't have to put up with it as much as women do, but I have noticed that some beggars will thrust out their hands in order to break down the boundary before asking for money. It definitely throws them if you look at their hand, then look at them like "We're not meeting; we're not friends."

'If you’re pushing a woman to change her behavior to "prevent" rape, RATHER THAN telling a perpetrator to change his, you’re really saying, "Make sure he rapes the other girl."' There will always be another girl at the bar," Dana Bolger, a co-founder of Know Your IX, which advocates for sexual assault victims on campus, wrote on Feministing." (emphasis added)

This is not a zero-sum game. It's not like there aren't enough minutes in the day or pixels on a page to address BOTH teaching prudent precautions against criminal attacks AND having good discussions about the need to establishing consent before launching yourself at someone's body. But then, those who yammer on against any mention of prudent precaution already know that, don't they? It just doesn't support their driving narrative so they pretend like you can't have both.

Rape is NOT just about power and never about sex, no matter how many times this opinion is asserted by ideologues. I've prosecuted rapists of adults, of adolescents, and of children. In my opinion, much if not most of rape is a sexual behavior and power is used when necessary to achieve the main goal. Just as robbers want to take your stuff, not just terrorize you, and so they use power to achieve your stuff winding up in their pockets. There's a rush associated with being able to intimidate people and to be dominant over them, but it's not unique to rape.

Gee, are we gonna wake up that idiot who called everybody a rape apologist?

Again.

Jay R, I can't help but notice that even lujlp doesn't give you much direct support on this forum - if any. That says plenty about your reputation here, even if most don't bother to express it.

But anyway, of course girls need to be taught that statutory rape laws - and other rape laws - apply to everyone who's old enough to be arrested for breaking them, so they'd better not break those laws. Even if those girls have trouble believing that boys ever don't want sex with a particular person. (Plenty of MEN have trouble not saying "lucky guy" with regard to a boy or man who was sexually victimized by a woman, as I'm sure you well know.)
_______________________________________

You also neglected to note that most of the serial rapists were abused as little boys -- by WOMEN.
__________________________________________

I don't have the exact statistics on that - and Ruth Bell didn't either. Otherwise I would have quoted them. At any rate, she said: "Many rapists come from families where they were beaten or humiliated or sexually abused as children." She did not say "most." So maybe it would be wrong to say "most."

After all, young athletes are notorious for having a scary sense of entitlement and for getting angry when they hear "no" in any context. Were THEY treated like dirt by their families? Not likely. Chances are they were spoiled by their families.

Something I said a while back - edited a bit:

Yes, rape has to do (in part) with sex. But it should not be assumed to be the "main" factor. Especially when you remember that, unlike with starving, homeless people who steal food, no one has ever suffered any physical damage from a lack of sex.

I'm not saying rape isn't about sex. After all, if it were ONLY about power, there are plenty of non-sexual, legal ways that sadistic people can make others feel powerless. (Many of us, for example, have childhood memories of Snape-like teachers - as did Rowling herself.)

However, it's been pretty well proven that many (most?) rapists have consensual sex available to them via other people, especially those who are adults - and many of the rapists are powerful people in society as well. Even so, to narcissists, who are often egged on in their narcissism by their fans, there's never such a thing as enough power, whether over one individual or many individuals. This is why many teen star athletes and adult celebrities are notorious for getting angry whenever they hear the word "no," whether it's in a sexual context or not.

So it seems that rape DOES have plenty to do with the "need" for power, per se, when what the perpetrators really likely need is to be taught a little humility (not that I know how that can be taught to adults, per se). Especially when it comes to TEEN offenders (of either sex), who tend to be the ones with anger management issues and entitlement issues, even when they're not athletes. Just because your teen sons and daughters are old enough to KNOW what the penalties are for minors who commit felonies (of any kind) doesn't mean they're old enough to be unsupervised at parties - or on weekends. They have to know that you're watching them - and that you WON'T act as their lawyers when they break the law. I.e., they have to be at least somewhat afraid of their parents to grow up properly.

ALL kids need to be at least somewhat supervised so they don't break one law or another. As many a parent likes to say (if not openly) "it's not that I don't trust you; I just don't trust the circumstances." E.g., you don't turn your back on a certain five-year-old at the supermarket, because he/she might duck for a few seconds into the candy aisle and try to stuff candy into deep pockets.

And again, as many have pointed out, kids are simply NOT born kind and good, which is why it's just not enough to teach them what the rules are - they have to have the fear of punishment put into them until they're old enough to have developed more of a conscience - and empathy. Not to mention the fear of hearing a loving parent say "I am so disappointed in you" - which only works if the parent IS the loving type and not the type who yells every day for no reason.

This is not a zero-sum game. It's not like there aren't enough minutes in the day or pixels on a page to address BOTH teaching prudent precautions against criminal attacks AND having good discussions about the need to establishing consent before launching yourself at someone's body.
_________________________________________

In theory. But there's a good reason that more and more people consider it outrageous that at least 50% of the responsibility for rape prevention for women is placed on women. See below.
_______________________________________

the program teaches women to live in a world where sexual assault is an unavoidable reality.
_______________________________________

And I'm sure black parents used to teach their sons, especially, to do everything possible to reduce their chances of getting beaten up or lynched by white people - even when the "excuse" for the attack was completely false. After all, for a century after the Civil War, regular lynchings were "an unavoidable reality."

Do we STILL act as though there's nothing we can do to stop individual white people from lynching black people? Or that black people need to change their attitudes and behavior accordingly, to prevent it? Of course not. We even work on preventing that sort of white mental attitude from forming in the first place, never mind the actual violence. (Yes, of course black-on-black violence is no joke, but it's based heavily on poverty and not on pointless racism.) We now understand that white-on-black violence is a white problem and must be addressed as such.

Also, we used to refuse, in effect, to treat drunk driving as a crime even when innocent people got killed. (Thank goodness that changed.) Yes, driver's ed teachers teach students to watch out for drunk drivers, but society's emphasis is still on the drunk drivers, as well it should be.

And from last year:

While I don't like the term "rape culture," since it clearly exaggerates the problem in the U.S., per se, here's what Paul Kivel, author of "Boys Will be Men," wrote on pages 170-171:

"Too often the conclusion boys draw from these conflicting (parent vs. media) messages is that men shouldn't hit women EXCEPT when the woman is out of control, too emotional, going crazy, defiant, rebellious, manipulative, or just generally out of line, i.e., when she acts like a bad girl as men have been taught to define it. Men fear that if they let a women get out of control, or if they lose ultimate control of a relationship, the woman will take advantage of them or they will be abandoned.

"Boys are also taught not to rape women. But the underlying and pervasive social messages boys receive is that women are sexual objects and that successful men are able to get sex from women. All men can buy pictures and videos of women's bodies, smooth-talking men can seduce women, rich men can buy access to women's bodies, and the rest have to use more force. Although extreme force is nominally condemned (but still rarely punished), the assumption that men should have access to sex from women when they want it is not generally challenged."

(end of excerpt)

That said, I think assertiveness training is a fine idea. I’m sad to say it took me rather a long time to make my auto-response to handsiness, sexual pressure and low-key predatory behavior NOT “laugh awkwardly step back, repeat, and hope he gets the hint.” Saying, “I’m not into this. I am leaving” followed by “Seriously, stop touching me” and walking away needs to be normalized. And some people need drilling to make that their default.

sofar at April 1, 2019 11:10 AM
_____________________________________

From a long, wonderfully sensitive 1994 article in Harper's - "On not being a victim: sex, rape, and the trouble with following rules." At one point, the author, Mary Gaitskill, said that rape by a stranger could, in some ways, be less horrific than rape by someone she knew and trusted.

http://genedseminars.umb.edu/engl273-2/spg09/documents/HarpersMagazine-1994-03-0001592.pdf

Near the end, she tells this story:

"...I think men and women will always have to struggle to behave responsibly. But I think we could make the struggle less difficult by changing the way we teach responsibility and social conduct. To teach a boy that rape is “bad” is not as effective as making him see that rape is a violation of his own masculine dignity as well as a violation of the raped woman. It’s true that children don’t know big words and that teenage boys aren’t all that interested in their own dignity. But these are things that children learn more easily by example than by words, and learning by example runs deep...

"...A few years ago I invited to dinner at my home a man I’d known casually for two years. I didn’t have any intention of becoming sexual with him, but after dinner we slowly got drunk and were soon floundering on the couch. I was ambivalent not only because I was drunk but because I realized that although part of me was up for it, the rest of me was not. So I began to say no. He parried each 'no' with charming banter and became more aggressive. I went along with it for a time because I was amused and even somewhat seduced by the sweet, junior-high spirit of his manner. But at some point I began to be alarmed, and then he did and said some things that turned my alarm into fright. I don’t remember the exact sequence of words or events, but I do remember taking one of his hands in both of mine, looking him in the eyes, and saying, 'If this comes to a fight you would win, but it would be very ugly for both of us. Is that really what you want?'

"His expression changed and he dropped his eyes; shortly afterward he left.

"It is not hard for me to make such decisions now, but it took me a long time to get to this point. I only regret that it took so long, both for my young self and for the boys I was with, under circumstances that I now consider disrespectful to all concerned."

(end of excerpts)

"Do we STILL act as though there's nothing we can do to stop individual white people from lynching black people?">>>>

This is not the point of Amy's post and the linked references. The question isn't whether or not there is any further work to be done by society to discourage inappropriate coercion and encourage clear consent. The discussion is whether it's inappropriate to educate people about risk factors and to encourage safer behavior.

"Or that black people need to change their attitudes and behavior accordingly, to prevent it?">>>

Black parents still teach their children about risky situations and strategies about how to stay safe. Does anyone yell at them for doing so? I don't think so. Same thing applies to anyone of any race or group learning their best strategies to stay safe. The need to learn to stay safe and protect oneself is universal.

The discussion is whether it's inappropriate to educate people about risk factors and to encourage safer behavior.
______________________________________

It is inappropriate to blur the line between crimes of profit (which, sometimes, are crimes committed to prevent starvation) and crimes of senseless, bigoted violence. Especially when you're a teen and you're being forced by your school to sit through a lecture by some stranger, as opposed to having to listen to a private lecture by a parent. (If one WANTS to hear a lecture on how to avoid becoming a victim, that's completely different, of course, but either way, it's all in how the warnings are phrased, since bigoted violence is not on the same casual level as theft and should not be treated as such.
______________________________________

Black parents still teach their children about risky situations and strategies about how to stay safe.
_____________________________________

Yes, but when those strategies (especially regarding white-on-black violence) don't work, the parents typically go after the perpetrator - and they Do Not yell at their kid for being "stupid." Even a lecture made to a black teenage male driver about the dos and don'ts when he's stopped by a police officer doesn't always work - if, say, the teen panics and forgets to put his hands on the wheel.

How often, if ever, does one hear of an OUTSIDER who lectures black kids on how not to ruffle the feathers of white racists? (Again, black parents might order their kids to stay out of certain white neighborhoods, but that isn't always enough of a precaution, as anyone knows.)

"it is inappropriate to blur the line between crimes of profit (which, sometimes, are crimes committed to prevent starvation) and crimes of senseless, bigoted violence."

I'm sorry, I don't see where anyone in any way has been discussing crimes of profit??? The ONLY issue raised by Amy's post is whether there's something wrong with discussing or educating on strategies to avoid sexual assault.

I'm sorry, I don't see where anyone in any way has been discussing crimes of profit???
_________________________________________

Not in this thread, per se. By multiple other people, yes, so the implication is constantly hanging in the air. (Cathy Young, in one of her 2014 columns, asked, in effect, "why can't we just think of avoiding rape in the same way we think of avoiding theft?")

I very much doubt she would have dreamed of talking that way if the subject were racist or homophobic violence.

My point is that every parent, teacher and lecturer needs to remember that and phrase their lectures accordingly.

To reiterate: I think it would be great for parents of daughters to convince them not to drink heavily or on an empty stomach - but to make it sound as though their PRIMARY reasons are a need for decorum, maturity, and the saying "if you have to get drunk to have fun, it's not fun."

Not to mention that if there's any chance a couple's SON is not 100% trustworthy, HE needs to be chaperoned by the couple.

(In the similar vein, many parents don't tell their daughters not to eat X, Y or Z because it will make them fat; they just say "that's not good for you." )

Another example: When teaching a daughter what common courtesy is about, a parent might teach a girl not to accept being treated to a dinner date when she already knows she's not going to host any dinner date with that boy in the future. Nice and neutral - and protective.

And as far as lecturers at high schools go, one method could be for them to hold separate classes for the boys and girls (while making it clear in the lectures, of course, that it's illegal for girls to assault boys as well and that boys shouldn't feel embarrassed about saying no or pressing charges). The lecturers could then tell the girls how serial predators tend to operate (as well as how boys who don't quite believe in unwanted sex tend to operate) and how OTHER women tend to protect themselves without limiting their freedom severely. They can then choose what they want to do without pressure - but it would still have to be carefully worded. (They could also tell the girls what Ruth Bell said above.)

Sorry to keep repeating myself, but I'd like to summarize (even if no one sees this).

1. It's all about context. Why is there a "taboo" on warning women? For the same reason there's a "taboo" on society pressuring teens and adults to sit down and listen to lectures on how to avoid becoming victims of racist or homophobic violence. This, despite the fact that going to alcohol-soaked parties would clearly make potential victims all the more vulnerable. Obviously, parents are free to lecture to their own kids, and vulnerable teens and adults, who are often aware of their status, frequently seek out protective information On Their Own, in the privacy of the library or Internet. (Context, again.)

Society understands that violence against minorities is a problem for the MAJORITY to solve, not the minority. We talk to white kids about why racist/homophobic gangs and websites are evil. We're even starting to teach children not to be uncaring bystanders to school bullying. We try to reform young psychopaths while they're still minors. We even protect strangers, via the system of "friends don't let friends drive drunk." So why does the burden get (unofficially) flipped, with regard to women? Of course that makes them angry.

2. See this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/04/millennials-sober-sick-of-drinking/586186/

So if the drinking rate among the young is dropping, all the more reason to start focusing on how potential date rapists are quite capable of finding victims without the help of alcohol - and how women locking themselves up won't solve the real problem.

Also, as many have pointed out on a different subject, it's not fair to talk or act as though drug abuse in America is a criminal problem when it's clearly a health problem. What's the difference with regard to alcohol? I.e., why not focus on the big picture of alcohol abuse rather than on rape? What makes people mad is the implication that drinking heavily is more-or-less benign for men. No, it ISN'T - if only because that can lead to lethal alcohol poisoning, or serial drunk driving. (Obviously, DUIs of any kind are very much a crime and need to be treated as such. Sober drivers still need to travel, after all - and they will get killed.)

And again, women who abstain from alcohol are still not safe from the many young men who don't believe in unwanted sex in the first place (this is universal). Since no one is going to suggest bringing back chaperones for adult females on dates, that means parents and teachers have to find ways to teach boys that no, unwanted sex is not some PC joke, so if the boys can't be trusted to stay away from any situation that could turn into a felony, THEY will have to be closely supervised by adults at all times. That includes avoiding peer pressure situations, such as dropping boulders off of overpasses. We don't say "boys will be boys" with regard to that potentially lethal crime - what's the difference?

And if Amy - or anyone else here - still thinks that "Good men do not have to be 'taught not to rape,' the same as they do not need to be taught not to rob banks or beat up old people," please consider that that's like saying "we don't have to teach teens not to drink and drive and kill people, because even 10-year-olds understand why the drunk driving laws exist."

Yes, 10-year-olds do understand. Trouble is, teens are not ten-year-olds.
__________________________________

And, to reiterate:

Haven't we all heard of "good" teen boys and girls who love, respect and fear their parents, but who also fear being unpopular TWICE as much - so, they shoplift, under peer pressure, time and again? Or "good" teens who steal even when alone because they have NO friends and need to fill the void? I.e., even teaching kids not to STEAL is not as simple as parents want to believe.