EPTUN, Women Rights, Flogging, & Female Circumcision - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Take the discussions of the merits of religion to PMs - KwarK | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
On January 27 2012 22:12 vetinari wrote: No one has their car stolen because they leave the keys in the ignition. Someone has their car stolen because another person makes the conscious decision to steal their car. When you start talking about how it would have been prevented had the victim taken certain precautions, you shift the blame to them. Have I got that right? This is a very touchy subject for one simple reason. Juries are fucking stupid. For decades lawyers have used the "well she was clearly asking for it" defence to get people who don't even deny rape acquitted. It is the duty of the lawyer to do whatever they can for their client but it's a bullshit argument and holds absolutely no water. But juries are stupid and they accept it and countless rape victims have to sit there in court and listen to their peers conclude that the horrific crime that was inflicted upon them was not because the guy who did it to them was a criminal but was as a result of their actions. People are wrong to say that there aren't things you can do to lower the chance of getting raped. However they are very much in the right to get pissed off whenever people use that argument. That argument has been twisted to justify countless atrocities against women and whenever it is repeated in any form it reinforces the idea that the blame doesn't lie solely with the rapist. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
You could argue "she might not have been raped if she hadn't been wearing that skirt." Alright, well in that case, we could also argue that she very likely wouldn't have been raped if she'd just stayed home that night. Or if she never left the house without a guard, or a weapon. Where do we draw the line of "you should have done X to protect yourself?" In every case, arguing over what could have been done *by* the victim to prevent/deter a crime, you are blaming the victim, and ignoring the fact that another person made the conscious decision to assault them. As for your car analogy, what the fuck? What does it say about our culture/society in general if "it looked easy" or "I thought I could get away with it" is seen as a valid or excusable motive for a crime? | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On January 27 2012 22:12 vetinari wrote: No one has their car stolen because they leave the keys in the ignition. Someone has their car stolen because another person makes the conscious decision to steal their car. When you start talking about how it would have been prevented had the victim taken certain precautions, you shift the blame to them. Have I got that right? if you leave your window open insurance companies wont pay out because youre being a dumb ass. plus criminals will tell you that they will only target dumb asses because they are more likely to get away with it. bad metaphor when going with rape really. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
On January 27 2012 23:42 Haemonculus wrote: Ehh... you could argue that there are things someone can do to prevent assault, sure. It just seems incredibly arbitrary. Most convicted rapists can't even remember what their victim was wearing. Many rapes also happen inside the home, in which case it's unlikely she was really dressing "provocatively" or whatnot. You could argue "she might not have been raped if she hadn't been wearing that skirt." Alright, well in that case, we could also argue that she very likely wouldn't have been raped if she'd just stayed home that night. Or if she never left the house without a guard, or a weapon. Where do we draw the line of "you should have done X to protect yourself?" In every case, arguing over what could have been done *by* the victim to prevent/deter a crime, you are blaming the victim, and ignoring the fact that another person made the conscious decision to assault them. As for your car analogy, what the fuck? What does it say about our culture/society in general if "it looked easy" or "I thought I could get away with it" is seen as a valid or excusable motive for a crime? I have the right to property but that doesn't mean I should expect that right to be held as sacrosanct by other people because many people are dicks. Likewise women have the right to not be raped but that doesn't mean they should act like there aren't any rapists in the world. Nobody has any problem telling children not to go off with strangers at the same time nobody blames the children who do get abducted. On the other end of the spectrum if someone I knew decided to go out by himself and get really drunk and then woke up in the morning with no wallet I'd have little sympathy for him, regardless of his rights. Both had their rights violated and neither is to blame for it but the world is a shitty place, you accept that being morally in the right does not stop wrong being done to you and you try and limit that. Girls on a night out should, for their own safety, follow a few guidelines such as not accepting drinks from strangers. Failure to follow these is exhibiting the same naivity as a child accepting sweets from a stranger, we shouldn't blame them for the crime any more than we'd blame the child but we can recognise that they've taken insufficient precautions. Returning to my original point, the problem is juries. They don't understand that when someone gambles with their ability to prevent an evil act from being done to them that does not mean they cause the evil. Juries buy it so lawyers use it so rapists get away with it and feminists get pissed off with it and then random police officers giving people good advice get in trouble. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Of course in many African countries there has evolved the idea of corrective rape for lesbians which is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. That might fall under LGBT rights instead of women's rights. But really, no human should be getting raped. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
The problem is making sure people understand that just like with a car, the person must actually be explicitly asking for it for it to be legal. What the distinction ends up as is moral/legal responsibility v. 'responsibility' of the consequences (ie no insurance company payout) | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
In the drink from a stranger situation, the drugged-drink-giver has clearly already made the decision to try to rape someone that night. That's already been decided. Accepting that drink makes you the victim, instead of someone else. Not accepting that drink merely prevents *you* from being the victim. The crime still likely happens to someone else. With the what she was wearing routine, we're working on one of two assumptions. Either someone has already decided to rape another person, and is looking for a victim, (and evidence suggests that they look for weak/lonely/timid women, not necessarily attractiveness. They are picking someone unlikely to fight back or report them to the police,) or that the perpetrator was in fact not necessarily planning on raping anyone that night, but upon seeing the victim dressed a certain way, decided to. In either case it just seems highly counter productive to focus on the actions/dress of the victim when the decision to commit the crime was clearly on the rapist. It's incredibly troubling that in almost every situation, the discussion inevitably turns to scrutiny of the victim. It's become that acceptable. But again, we're focusing on the stranger-rape case, which is relatively rare. Statistically, you know your assailant, and he didn't abduct you in a dark alleyway. Most likely he came to your apartment, and you let him in. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
Someone who would not want to report the rape is someone who is vulnerable, the weaknesses in the system are public knowledge, both to rapists and victims. Anything that makes it less likely the rapist will get convicted, even if it shouldn't in a just world, makes the target more vulnerable. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
It's a cyclical problem . People get away with rape in court because of the "she was asking for it" defense. Then we, as greater society, go home and talk on the internet about maybe there's some merit to her outfit causing rape. We all talk about it, and hear about it on the media, and it starts to become generally accepted. Then someone gets raped, and the defense uses the "she was asking for it" routine. It's become way too acceptable, and discussions such as this in which people do seem to support the notion that the victim's outfit is somehow an important factor are part of the problem. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 26 2012 12:57 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Well at least people agreed that they're both bad to have. If you put the FGM and circumcision all under genital mutilation, you might be able to kill two birds with one stone, though you'll have twice the resistance. No extra resources needed for making the argument though so that's different from fighting two diseases at once. Actually fighting bigger resistance means that extra resources are necessary. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 27 2012 03:25 sunprince wrote: smokeyhoodoo: FGM is worse than male circumcision!!1 Think of the wimminz!!! sunprince: Well yeah, but we're not talking about which one is worse. We're saying both are awful ways in which the bodily integrity of children are violated, and all because of religion. smokeyhoodoo: But FGM is WORSE! Think of hte wimminz!!! -_- You fail logic forever. It's like you're incapable of understanding why male circumcision and FGM are intrinsically related, or that it makes sense to fight them at the same time. Ok, then you seem to fail comprehension. I was criticizing your analogies, which were bad. | ||
|
Golem72
Canada127 Posts
First off I'll start by saying that each individual has free will. Women and men do a lot of bad things men used to sell their daughters for land and marry shit tons of women etc. women used to cheat on husbands and socialize in such a way that would bring I'll fortune on another person. I hope you understand what I am saying if anything before money was invented we were trading women, virgins, and our daughters for other things why? What value is in this really? Some people seem to know by themselves through a general or deep thinking but I only just skimmed this topic for a single reason. That reason is we know what men are like we know that some men will protect their women and family to the bitter ultra-violent death and the women "MAY" not have to even lift a finger as he slaves away for his whole life doing what men do well. Not to say that there are no great women out there because there are (Just not Hilary Clinton lol), and there have been over the many generations..... sadly I don't know any that would be of good use for an example (lol I'm just making them sound worse). However knowing this about men the thought came to me was that in western society we sort have really fucked ourselves over I mean think about it! I will give you two examples because in Islamic society basically you can say the women have no rights basically your rights are what your husband gives to you and they can never leave them or it's over your life may be over. However in western society if the wife leaves the husband her life is not over it could very well be just beginning. Now my examples are very brutal and swing more to the side of hating on women but I just want you guys to think about it! I am not married yet but if I do (though I don't like the thought of marriage) I would like to stick it out with the one person I chose and if anything you all have your own ideas on that kind of stuff. Anyways getting to the point in our culture their is life without the husband as in when you get a divorce or separated you can leave with whatever the courts decide my example is that of an article I read once where the wife divorced a man in France because they got married and the husband never had sex with the wife...... confusing for like 21 years or something like that so she won like a ton of money and then a couple years later sued for emotional damages and won more money. As very confusing as it is in Islamic culture you know you can't do that nor would you get away with scarring a man like that so when I think about how women are treated there the thought came to me that as wrong as it may seem it seems right and for western culture you know the whole court system getting a divorce and whatever as wrong as it may seem it too seems right....... so basically I'm confused I'm on the fence about this but in all I just threw this out there for you guys to think about it. Ps. I may have run on too long and If I seem like I don't know what I'm talking about ignore this post. | ||
|
Cytokinesis
Canada330 Posts
| ||
|
Keyboard Warrior
United States1178 Posts
| ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
2) Rapist targets women who dress provocatively (this is criminal) Until dressing provocatively is a crime, it shouldn't be an acceptable excuse for the rapist. Period. There is no circumstance in which rape suddenly becomes non-criminal. It doesn't matter if you walked around naked. Rape is a crime because it's rape. This is so self-evident that I can't believe people actually take issue with it. Yes, dressing unobtrusively will make you less appealing to a minority of rapists (remember, rape is often an act of domination rather than lust) but that doesn't really imply that dressing provocatively implies the rapist did nothing wrong. | ||
|
YumYumGranola
Canada346 Posts
On January 28 2012 01:22 Golem72 wrote: Ok I'm just going to raise points that you guys can argue about by yourselves! First off I'll start by saying that each individual has free will. Women and men do a lot of bad things men used to sell their daughters for land and marry shit tons of women etc. women used to cheat on husbands and socialize in such a way that would bring I'll fortune on another person. I hope you understand what I am saying if anything before money was invented we were trading women, virgins, and our daughters for other things why? What value is in this really? Some people seem to know by themselves through a general or deep thinking but I only just skimmed this topic for a single reason. That reason is we know what men are like we know that some men will protect their women and family to the bitter ultra-violent death and the women "MAY" not have to even lift a finger as he slaves away for his whole life doing what men do well. Not to say that there are no great women out there because there are (Just not Hilary Clinton lol), and there have been over the many generations..... sadly I don't know any that would be of good use for an example (lol I'm just making them sound worse). However knowing this about men the thought came to me was that in western society we sort have really fucked ourselves over I mean think about it! I will give you two examples because in Islamic society basically you can say the women have no rights basically your rights are what your husband gives to you and they can never leave them or it's over your life may be over. However in western society if the wife leaves the husband her life is not over it could very well be just beginning. Now my examples are very brutal and swing more to the side of hating on women but I just want you guys to think about it! I am not married yet but if I do (though I don't like the thought of marriage) I would like to stick it out with the one person I chose and if anything you all have your own ideas on that kind of stuff. Anyways getting to the point in our culture their is life without the husband as in when you get a divorce or separated you can leave with whatever the courts decide my example is that of an article I read once where the wife divorced a man in France because they got married and the husband never had sex with the wife...... confusing for like 21 years or something like that so she won like a ton of money and then a couple years later sued for emotional damages and won more money. As very confusing as it is in Islamic culture you know you can't do that nor would you get away with scarring a man like that so when I think about how women are treated there the thought came to me that as wrong as it may seem it seems right and for western culture you know the whole court system getting a divorce and whatever as wrong as it may seem it too seems right....... so basically I'm confused I'm on the fence about this but in all I just threw this out there for you guys to think about it. Ps. I may have run on too long and If I seem like I don't know what I'm talking about ignore this post. Sorry bud but there's so much backwards and illogical thinking in this post I don't even know where to start. The idea of the house-wife vacation lifestyle is patently absurd. I don't even know where to begin addressing this point, so the only thing I can say is that you should read some literature on the subject. There's whole books dedicated to why you're wrong. You're also doing something ridiculous when you put all the blame on a divorce on the woman, and all the pain on the man. And even if this absurdly simplistic and incorrect notion was true, do you honestly think the pain of some men having to go through a divorce is even REMOTELY similar to the pain that women have to go through in highly patriarchal societies? Could you imagine if you were denied any right to a real education and opportunity for a career? Where people had strict restrictions right down to what you wear and when you can speak? Where it's illegal to do something as simple as drive a car, or even walk down the street unaccompanied by a male companion? Where any resistance to these gender norms could get you killed (see honor killings)? But no, some men have to pay out in a divorce when their wife stays at home, essentially providing free childcare/cleaning etc. Like what do you think? Should a woman who gave up a career opportunities due to obligations at home just be left with nothing at the time of divorce? If you wanted to pay a third party to do all of the things a housewife does for free it has been estimated that it would cost upwards of $100,000.00 per year. Should this contribution not qualify for a share of the joint couple's estate? Get off the fence, you look like a moron up there. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On January 28 2012 01:34 Shiori wrote: 1) Woman dresses provocatively (this is not criminal) 2) Rapist targets women who dress provocatively (this is criminal) Until dressing provocatively is a crime, it shouldn't be an acceptable excuse for the rapist. Period. There is no circumstance in which rape suddenly becomes non-criminal. It doesn't matter if you walked around naked. Rape is a crime because it's rape. This is so self-evident that I can't believe people actually take issue with it. Yes, dressing unobtrusively will make you less appealing to a minority of rapists (remember, rape is often an act of domination rather than lust) but that doesn't really imply that dressing provocatively implies the rapist did nothing wrong. I agree. Also a lot of that minority of rapes where the rapist doesn't know the victim it's a crime of opportunity rather than a calculated crime targeting someone based on clothes or whatnot. Meaning they choose the victim based on who happens to walk along that specific road, the one that just happens to step out of the bus right then and so on. They shouldn't get a pass because the victim happens to wear a short skirt. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On January 28 2012 02:32 gruff wrote: I agree. Also a lot of that minority of rapes where the rapist doesn't know the victim it's a crime of opportunity rather than a calculated crime targeting someone based on clothes or whatnot. Meaning they choose the victim based on who happens to walk along that specific road, the one that just happens to step out of the bus right then and so on. They shouldn't get a pass because the victim happens to wear a short skirt. Taking this into account, it might be the wall flower that is most likely to end up getting raped by strangers. After all, the type of girl that dresses "provocatively" is more likely to be in the company of men, making her an unappealing target for a rapist that is waiting for a lone victim. Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl. That's just not how these people think. | ||
| ||
