Over at Stan's blog recently, he took on the conservative boob who said the two most important things to him are "the Constitution and Boobs." [Clay Travis, who said to a reporter, who happened to be a woman (not that it really matters), "I believe in only two things completely. The First Amendment, and boobs."] Stan criticized the guy for being in the wrong. Stan said, "She (and I) thought it was rude for him to say it."
Okay, as far as it goes. But, Stan didn't leave it there. He added a BUT. "But," he said, "I do wonder why women who rightly are offended when men are that rude continue to wear outfits clearly intended to accentuate the features men are not supposed to comment on..."
Stan (and his commenters, with him) rightly found Travis in the wrong (although, I'm not sure that merely calling his comment "rude" is the right way to identify his error...), they also shared some blame towards women who dress "wrong..." meaning, of course, wrong, by their measure...
Oh, they assured and reassured us that it was entirely the man who was wrong or, in the case of a rapist "aroused" by women dressing "wrong," the rapist who was wrong... BUT... why would the women dress "that way..."?
Craig put it this way...
"Why would anyone assume that they won't run into one of them [rapists], and be dressed in a way that draws attention?"
Stan clarified it this way (speaking in the voice of those who defend women dressing, you know, how they want)...
"Women should be allowed to ... nay, celebrated for dressing as slutty as they wish..."
So, allow me to try to clarify what seems like it would be obvious...
Craig, consider these questions:
1. Why would anyone assume that they won't run into one of them [rapists], and be dressed in a way that draws attention?
2. Why would anyone assume that they won't run into one of them [robbers], and be dressed in a way that draws attention (i.e., dressing as if you had money)?
3. Why would anyone assume that they won't run into one of them [killer atheists], and be dressed in a way that draws attention (i.e., wearing a cross necklace and carrying a bible, for instance)?
With those extra questions, do you see the problem with your approach?
Let me spell it out for you:
3. Christians wear what they want because it is their choice to do so and they should not be intimidated to wear something else because it might draw the attention of killer atheists.
2. Wealthy people wear what they want because it is their choice to do so and they should not be intimidated to wear something else because it might draw the attention of robbers.
1. Women wear what they want because it is their choice to do so and they should not be intimidated to wear something else because it might draw the attention of rapists.
It's our human liberty to wear what we wish and we are not wrong for wearing that, nor should the reality of bad people who might be "aroused" by what we wear cause people to opt for other clothes. Are you suggesting that Christians should NOT wear things that identify them as Christians to avoid any conflict? Or would you bristle at that suggestion?
You of course don't need to comment here, Craig, but if you choose to reply to this post, please begin with an answer to that question. Thanks.
Stan, I am sure you were truly thinking you were defending women and only attacking this guy, but you sure (and if not you, some of your commenters) didn't sound like you were defending women. You sounded sexist and a bit perverse.
You see, you all are saying, "Yes, it is the MAN who is wrong for saying 'boobs' matter most to him... BUT, why do women..." and "Yes, it is the MAN who is wrong for raping women... BUT, why would women..."
And when pushed on it, you said you "got" it, what the complaint was... you'd encourage women to dress to a degree that you would call "modest," and if they weren't dressed "modestly enough," then they might be sort of asking for it... of course, it's the MAN's fault... BUT...
It's the "BUT" that is getting you off track. The correct answer is, "It's the man's fault for making sexist comments." PERIOD. "It is the MAN's fault for assaulting a woman." PERIOD.
And end it there. Don't pause and then go on to sorta blame the woman just a little bit, too. Because she was "dressed wrong." Or, as you put it, she could be dressed as slutty as she wished. The commenters at this blog kept suggesting that there was a line that is crossed and by crossing that line, women could expect to be abused, maligned and raped. "Not that it's right," you clarify, but still...
I asked you if you agree with the Muslim extremist measure of wearing a burka. You all balked at the comparison. "Well, well, bu... well, NO! No, of course we don't believe in making women wear burkas..." BUT. But they should be dressed modestly, for their own sake, because you're gentlemen, in your minds and you don't want these poor women to be subjected to a possible rapist (which is a crime of power, not sexuality, you should know) or perverse treatment by perverse men.
No, you don't advocate a burka. Not full blown. BUT...
That But is the problem.
It's not that you disagree with Muslim extremists, it's just that you draw the line at some point differently than they do. But you still draw a line, because you know what's best for these women, presumably.
And that's sexist.
132 comments:
The two questions to answer first, Craig, are...
1. Are you suggesting that Christians should NOT wear things that identify them as Christians to avoid any conflict?
2. Or would you bristle at that suggestion?
To re answer your question.
I'm suggesting that people should use prudence when choosing what to wear. I'm NOT suggesting any particular course of action.
Do you understand the difference?
Since, the premise behind the question is false, and I've already answered it twice, no. What I bristle at is your hypocritical, arbitrary, closed minded, demands.
You probably fail to realize the irony that you've written a post decrying the (false) premise that I am suggesting that people be required to do something, by requiring me to accede to your demands.
Of course, the hypocrisy of you deleting the answers to the questions you demanded I answer speaks for itself.
You act like you don't get it. That is, I hope you're acting, because if you really don't get it, Dan, you validate my low opinion of your ability to "reason".
First of all,
"It's our human liberty to wear what we wish and we are not wrong for wearing that..."
Really. So one would not be wrong for wearing a shirt that said, "Fags should die" or perhaps wear a white sheet with a pointy hood. They have that right, after all, right?
You're absurd. A woman who dresses in a provocative manner does so to enhance her looks so as to impress those who see her so dressed, be the observer male OR female (different reasons for impressing each). The women in question dress to draw attention to themselves hoping only the right men will be notice and respond to her in the manner she intends as if life works that way. If you're not among those she hoped to attract, you're not to notice, you're not to ogle, you're not to make any advances of any kind. Your compliments are not welcome. But again, it's what should be expected by dressing in a manner that can't help but draw all that attention.
The question isn't a matter of rights. It's a matter of thinking beyond one's initial hopes. If you don't like unwanted attention, then don't dress to attract it. It's that simple. If you insist upon dressing that way, then deal with unwanted attractions. That was the point of Stan's post.
And by the way, your poor ability to craft analogies has not improved. What's more, they fail to consider we're talking about the weaker sex. Or perhaps you don't mind if your wife or daughter dress like street walkers. I'm aware if I'm dressed in my best that I may indeed bring attention to those who think I'm possibly carrying big bucks. If I don't want that attention, or feel I couldn't handle such attention, I would dress accordingly. But to think just claiming I have the right will make any difference to the mugger is pretty stupid. For women to think they have the right to dress like tramps and expect low character men to keep to themselves is stupid as well. Rights don't matter to such people, or else rape, or even such things as catcalls and whistling, wouldn't occur.
Modest dress is a Christian thing, as well. Dressing in a manner that arouses the prurient interest leads to wicked thoughts, which can lead to worse actions. We are to be wary of leading others to sin. For women, that can lead to situations that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. It's simply sound policy to dress in a more modest (not prudish, as it isn't necessary) manner. Really attractive women don't need to dress like tramps. Unattractive women aren't more attractive simply by doing so. All women inspire something other than respect when they expose too much of themselves. It's just the way it is. It will never be otherwise, rights be damned.
So one would not be wrong for wearing a shirt that said, "Fags should die" or perhaps wear a white sheet with a pointy hood. They have that right, after all, right?
You don't get it, Marshall. It's the CAUSING HARM part that makes something wrong. A woman can wear a bikini and she's not causing anyone harm. The jackass who sexually degrades her, calls her a slut or assaults her, THAT guy is causing harm.
Understand?
On the other hand, those who use clothes in abusive ways (advocating harming people or as part of a group whose philosophy is to cause harm/oppress), in THAT case, the clothes are a problem.
The difference is, HARM.
Understand?
Come on guys, this isn't that hard.
A woman who dresses in a provocative manner does so to enhance her looks so as to impress those who see her so dressed
1. You're a dick.
2. You don't know shit.
3. Don't presume to speak for women, because 1 and 2.
Further comments like that will be deleted out of hand, Marshall.
Who the hell are YOU to say what motives a random woman has for dressing in a given outfit? Who the hell are YOU to call her clothes "provocative..."? You ain't the streak of shit a diarrheic slug leaves behind his ass. That's who you are.
Stop trying to speak for God. Stop trying to speak for women. You're just not good at it and it's not your fucking place.
I'm leaving your post, Marshall, just by way of yet another example of the sexist, shit-eating pervert-creeps that are the problem. But anything approaching this level of creepy will be deleted. Period.
More...
If you don't like unwanted attention, then don't dress to attract it
Dammit, Marshall, If you don't like unwanted attention, then GOOD for you. You shouldn't like unwanted attention. That's just basic human decency and the norm for what human interaction should be. The days of blaming women are WAY past, Marshall, and this is just a way of blaming women for "provoking" "unwanted attention" because THEY (the woman) chose to wear whatever they wanted...
Read and understand:
IT'S THE FAULT OF PERVERTS AND CREEPS FOR BEING PERVERTS AND CREEPS, NOT THE WOMEN OR THEIR CLOTHES.
I don't know if you have a daughter, Marshall, but pretend that you did... If she wore something that you considered "provocative" or "inappropriate," are you going to think, "DANG, my daughter's hot and sexy!" NO, you won't, not unless you're a bigger creep than you already act like you are.
Men can control themselves, we aren't brainless animals. And, for those few who might think they are brainless animals, THEY ARE THE PROBLEM, not the women, not the clothes.
Damn.
Modest dress is a Christian thing, as well. Dressing in a manner that arouses the prurient interest leads to wicked thoughts, which can lead to worse actions.
Says you. Jesus never told me that. Beyond that point, though, I'm entirely fine with the Christian who wants to dress to their ideal of "modesty" doing just that. I'm entirely fine with the Muslim who wants to wear a burka. That is THEIR call. BUT, If a lady chooses to NOT wear a burka, but a turtleneck and long skirt (where you can still "see her outline and shape") THAT is up to that woman, too, and she should not be called a slut or blamed for dressing "too sexy" for her choice. Same for whatever clothing a woman chooses to wear or not wear.
The days of blaming and shaming women are past and only the worst perverts and neanderthals are holding on to that.
Don't be a neanderthal, Marshall. Or, if you choose to, expect to be opposed.
We will not stand for oppression. Those days are done.
I asked...
1. Are you suggesting that Christians should NOT wear things that identify them as Christians to avoid any conflict?
Craig, you answered...
I'm suggesting that people should use prudence when choosing what to wear.
So, if there came a time when Christian artifacts provoked attacks and assault in a free country, you'd suggest that Christians are at least partly to blame for dressing provocatively?
Got it.
Me, I'm in favor of liberty, not oppression and I will not stand for oppression.
Those days are done.
Craig, do you understand that those who say, "Yes, the men ARE the ones to blame for the catcalls, the assault, the oppression... BUT, women should really know better than to dress 'provocatively..." are part of the problem, too? That they are blaming and shaming women in addition to the perverts?
Or, for instance, those who say, ""Why would anyone assume that they won't run into one of them [rapists], and
be dressed in a way that draws attention?" are also blaming the women for "drawing attention" by merely wearing clothes that cross some imaginary line of being "too provocative?"
Will you admit the mistake that you made in framing your question that way?
Will you join me in denouncing those who engage in that sort of blaming/shaming the victim behavior?
Also, why do people ask that question? What line do they/you think is being crossed as being "too sexy" or "too provocative..."? Are dresses that cover everything, including the ankles "good" and those that show thighs (but not knees) "bad?
Or is it okay to show the thighs, but showing the knees is "too provocative..." and something that might help lead to a rape, assault or harassment? What if the knees are covered but the dress is too tight so that you can still determine that the hips are there and the breasts are noticeable (even if the dress goes up to the neck, the shape of the breasts can be seen)?
Where is the line to where people like Marshall and others (you?) would say, "That's too provocative!" I get that you all don't draw the line at burkas, thinking, "Well, that's TOO much. Those stupid and prurient Muslim extremists!" but below the knee dresses are "right..."? That a dress that goes down two inches in the front (so that the clavicles are exposed/hinted at) is okay, but one that goes down so far that a hint of cleavage is noticeable is too much??
It seems like those who argue that women can and do, sometimes, dress "too provocatively" would fall under support for burkas, if they were being true to their values. That way, NO skin is shown and very little in the way of shape is even shown (I guess, depending upon the woman...)
Marshall, what is the line that is too far? Does it exist authoritatively, or only in your own mind? If so, who should make the call in saying, "Well, yes, that guy was wrong in catcalling her... BUT, she did show her knees, after all..."
Boys will be perverts is no defense, men.
Respect women to make their own choices without blame or shame.
Will you join me/us on the moral/non-oppressive side of history?
No Dan, you're wrong. I'm suggesting that one should exercise prudence in their choice of dress in differing circumstancees. Do you not understand that suggesting prudence isn't the same as demanding adherence to someone else's standards.
Further, if I was walking around in a country governed by the laws of the religion of peace, I would most likely not wear clothing or jewelry that would be provocative. Acknowledging the fact that that behavior would be the most prudent course of action, doesn't mean that I'm responsible for the consequences.
But, had you read my previous (wrongly deleted and not restored) comments as well as my comments elsewhere you'd know that.
Instead, you'd prefer to proceed with your false narrative and continue to misrepresent what I've said.
Questions, by definition, do not shame or oppress. Given that reality, I reject your false characterization.
Be careful, if you continue to insist that my question is anything but a question, you've tacitly admitted that your "racism enabling" "question" was not a question.
This is the problem with inconsistency, eventually you'll be caught up in it.
That aside, if you choose to misrepresent me you forfeit the right to demand answers until you prove your premise.
I'll be waiting for my previous comments to reappear.
I'm wrong about what? That we, in a free nation, should not blame victims of assault and harassment?
I don't think so.
That saying, "But maybe you shouldn't wear THAT..." is blaming the woman, not the pervert/assailant?
I don't think so.
What am I wrong about?
Are you saying...
"Why would anyone assume that they won't run into one of them [rapists], and
be dressed in a way that draws attention?"
is NOT blaming the women for "drawing attention"...? Why isn't it?
Why isn't it saying, "you know, if you wear that miniskirt, it might provoke bad men doing bad things to you?" saying SHE needs to adapt to the perversions of bad men, rather than demand that bad men just be stopped?
I'm saying that we should NOT adapt to perversions and bad rules that aid the assailants/attackers/oppressors. If you want to lend aid their way, go for it, but not me, and that's what it seems like to me.
Also, where is the line that you are drawing as "drawing attention too much..."? Why not wear a burka and be done with it?
These are reasonable questions to ask those who support shaming/blaming women.
Craig, given your wishy-washiness of what you're saying, perhaps it would help to clarify specifics... IF someone says...
"Yes, the men ARE the ones to blame for the catcalls, the assault, the oppression... BUT, women should really know better than to dress 'provocatively..."
Or, as Marshall put it, "it's what should be expected by dressing in a manner that can't help but draw all that attention."
Would you call that wrong and agree that it is blaming/shaming the victim?
There is no question in that comment, it's a judgement call. Women SHOULD know better than dress provocatively. You can EXPECT oppression/assault IF YOU DRESS THAT WAY.
Do you agree that this is a bad thing to say, as it blames women, not the criminals?
Please clarify.
Regarding how I would or wouldn't dress in a non-free nation or location... in a nation (or for that matter, a church, mosque or meeting place) run by religious fundamentalists/extremists... Yes, I might adapt to the standards of the anti-freedom location, but with the notice that I disagree with their fundamentalism and would not remain in any such place and that I have the freedom to choose to do that.
But we don't live in an oppressive theocratic/fundamentalist state.
That is the difference and if you don't think it's a big one, by all means, move to a place where what people wear or don't wear is forced upon them.
That only makes my point.
After all, in the places where women are forced to wear burkas, rape and the oppression of women has ended.
Right?
shit.
You're wrong in your characterization of my position.
To answer my own titular question, quoting Craig's question, "Why draw attention?"
1. Because wearing what I choose to wear is not "drawing attention," it's personal choice/self-determination/human liberty.
2. Because Liberty.
If it draws attention of some oppressive people and they choose to move from it catching their attention to choosing to oppress/assault/be a pervert, that's on them, not on me.
Liberty, men. It's worth defending and oppression ought to be opposed, not propped up.
~Dan
What is your position, Craig. By all means, clarify.
Will you oppose those like Marshall who say, "it's what should be expected by dressing in a manner that can't help but draw all that attention."
Do you agree that this sort of comment is blaming the victim?
Clarify, please, or move on.
The point is not to limit your speech, but to help you to clarify your position so we can understand one another.
~Dan
You do understand that a question is s questions, not s statement?
I realize you're not answering questions, only demanding answers based on your false characterization of my position.
I've stated my position multiple times. My position is to exercise prudence. It's not simple, it's not radical, it's not oppressive, it's common sense.
Clearly I have the right to wear a Che Guevara t-shirt to my hearts content. Does that mean that wearing it down Calle Ocho or in a neighborhood of Cuban emigres is a prudent course of action?
I'm saying that in all things, exercise as much freedom and liberty as you want to, but with freedom and liberty come responsibly.
So for the last time. Prudence.
i guess the whole I agree is just lost on you. But it's so much easier to just make up what you'd like my position to be, rather than what it actually is. It seems like even being wrong doesn't deter you.
I get your point. I'm asking you an additional question on another aspect of the topic.
One more time, do you agree that comments like Marshall's are blaming/shaming the victims?
Do you understand women and their allies who say, "bullshit!" to Marshall's comment... Where they are coming from?
Dan
I'd agree that Art' comments could be interpreted that way, but as usual, I'm not willing to make judgements about someone's intent based on some random comments.
I understand that there are people that have that response, and that you're one of them.
Personally, I think that in the theoretical abstract world of comments on a blog post, it's easy to take such a simplistic attitude. Just like it's easy to set up a straw man and knock it down. Or it's easier to jump to one extreme of the spectrum and assume your opponents are automatically on the other extreme.
It this point it seems pretty obvious that your more interested is hurling invective and vitriol than in a rational nuanced conversation. Which is fine if that's what you want, but simply accusing people of things they've already addressed, deleting comments that do what you demand, and making judgements about people's intent doesn't seem productive.
But that's just my opinion based on your comments and behavior.
Well, what many women and men are pointing out is - REGARDLESS of intent, comments like Marshall's are part of the problem, as they place some blame on women for dressing in a way that "provokes" rape, assault and oppression. We are calling those efforts BS and trying to educate people to NOT be part of the problem.
Stop stigmatizing , blaming and shaming women. That time is past where that's acceptable language to use, because real harm is being done in the name of that patronizing, patriarchal approach.
Dan
It's like people of goodwill approaching a grieving family of a rape victim and blithely saying, "it must have been part of God's plan.."
The intent doesn't matter, it's a stupid, inappropriate thing to say.
Dan
Really, intent doesn't matter? Nuance doesn't matter? We just uncritically assume that the voice who speaks the loudest is automatically correct?
The key word in your two comments is "seems", clearly what seems to be the case isn't always the case. Personally I see no reason to operate like that. I've found this living in the world of "is/is not" to be preferable to the world where "seems" is determinative.
Given the fact that you haven't answered one single question I've asked in this thread, I'll give you the gift of considering all of my questions rhetorical. It will save me from frustration.
It seems as though your discounting the possibility that some families might find comfort in being reassured that their family member's life might have been part of a largest design. It also seems your discounting the possibility of the existence of a larger plan or design.
But like so many things, passing blanket judgement without taking into account relationships and intent, seems short sighted and needlessly divisive.
Since my sister and mother died recently, my wife and I have tried to fill some of the holes left in my nieces lives. One of those was buying a dress for a school dance. While we could have gotten her a dress that looks like an extra from a rap video, we didn't think that would be the most appropriate choice. While I'm certain that Dan is the exception, I'd suggest that most teenage boys would have minds filled with certain teenage dreams if their date showed up dressed like many of their pop star idols.
Ultimately much of the problem is much larger than what people wear. It's about a popular culture that encourages sexual experimentation and cultural icons who got famous by releasing sex tapes or shaking what their mama gave them.
Please don't tell me that the "hook up" culture prevalent among young people values women. Please don't tell me that teenaged and older boys watching free porn on their smartphones values women. I hope that my neices grow up idolizing women who do things, create things, help people or make the world a better place. I hope they don't fall prey to the auto tuned teenager dancing around in a school uniform.
Liberty and freedom come with responsibility. I am all for the prudent exercise of both. But, if we're going to teach our kids defensive driving, why wouldn't we apply a similar philosophy to the rest of life?
Once again, just so you don't get my hopes up, consider any questions asked as rhetorical.
It seems as though your discounting the possibility that some families might find comfort in being reassured that their family member's life might have been part of a largest design. It also seems your discounting the possibility of the existence of a larger plan or design.
No, certainly some people do find comfort in such discomforting language and thoughts, so one would need to use their best judgment, but as a general rule, it's a dick-ish sort of thing to say and should be avoided unless you specifically know that the family digs that sort of approach. You do recognize, don't you, that many people would be tempted to punch you in the face for saying something as insensitive as that?
intent doesn't matter? Nuance doesn't matter?
Depends.
We just uncritically assume that the voice who speaks the loudest is automatically correct?
No.
In many - maybe most - ways we should take into consideration a person's intent. BUT, not in every way. For instance - and specific to what I'm talking about here - in cases of harm.
I'm entirely sure that there were slave owners who truly thought that owning those "poor black slaves" was the very best thing they could do for them. But harm. I don't give a damn if someone's true and best intention is, "Oh, I'll just take care of you as my slave, sweetheart!" it's still an atrocity that should be opposed and those who use language that normalizes slavery or tries to couch it as a kindness (even with sincere, good intentions) need to be alerted to the fact that they are asses who are helping perpetuate atrocities.
Do you disagree?
Or do you agree that while good intentions may matter in many ways, that we have to keep in mind that the road to hell, etc, etc and stand opposed to words that cause/promote harm.
Blaming/shaming victims is in that category.
Do you disagree?
if we're going to teach our kids defensive driving, why wouldn't we apply a similar philosophy to the rest of life?
This is exactly what I'm speaking of. Part of defensive rape/oppression/sexism prevention is ending the normalization/boys will be perverts/"they just can't help themselves when they see too much skin" defense of rapists and oppressors. We are saying Hell No. I don't care if she's shimmying around in a dental floss dress, she is not to blame for a pervert trying to rape, assault or verbally harass her.
It's the guy's fault. Period.
Repeat it after me: It's the guy's fault. Period.
WHEN you say, "Yes, it's the guy's fault... BUT..." You are defending them, whether or not that is your intention. Just as those who say, "Well, sometimes slavery was really for the best for those poor black folk" are defending slavery.
It also seems your discounting the possibility of the existence of a larger plan or design.
I do not believe that women and girls being raped is part of God's design. I believe God to be good, not evil.
I guess you DO believe that girls being raped is part of God's plan?
ugh.
Do you get why some people would be turned off by those who preach of such a god?
~Dan
Damn it, you went ahead and answered some of the questions I asked you to consider rhetorical, now I'll just be having the unrealistic expectation that you'll answer them all.
"You do recognize, don't you, that many people would be tempted to punch you in the face for saying something as insensitive as that?"
I realize that I specifically pointed out that things like context, relationship, and intent would all play into that particular conversation. I personally, never once (through the deaths both my parents or my sister) was tempted to "punch someone in the face" for trying (no matter how poorly) to offer comfort. But I guess you must run with a "punch in the face" crowd. I didn't even feel like punching my uncle who was trying to do a deal for my mom's house in the line at the visitation. I decided that grace was a better option than punching. But, again, that's just me.
"Do you disagree?"
Your example was pretty convoluted, but I'll try. I agree that people who used that sort of excuse for enslaving people were wrong to do so, and that that sort of thing should not be condoned. But, to equate slavery with some guy who "likes boobs", I'm not sure that sort of general observation rises to the level of harm. Clearly rape does, but no one is actually advocating, promoting, or excusing language that directly condones rape. As you point out rape is a multifaceted crime and to treat the causes in a simplistic manner does a disservice to the discussion.
But, how can one decry the "like boobs" comment as contributing to "rape culture", and not condemn porn at least as vociferously?
https://vawnet.org/material/pornography-and-sexual-violence
https://cyber.harvard.edu/VAW02/mod2-6.htm
https://fightthenewdrug.org/violence-and-rape-connected-with-porn/
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/05/29/4245269.htm
"Do you disagree?"
To the extent that happens, no I don't disagree. But to arbitrarily shut off legitimate avenues of discussion by crying "Don't blame the victim." doesn't seem helpful. It seems like there should be a way to have polite and respectful conversations about these difficult and painful subjects without resorting to shouting down those who take a different view.
"I guess you DO believe that girls being raped is part of God's plan?"
Nice job of taking my comment out of the context I offered it and twisting it into something else entirely. (The context was in response to your comment about what people say at funerals)
So I guess that you are;
a) wrong in your guess.
b)duplicitous is your taking my comment out of context and twisting it
c)wrong in your guess
"Do you get why some people would be turned off by those who preach of such a god?"
Do you get that no one is "preaching that sort of god"?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201205/the-triggers-sexual-desire-men-vs-women
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-research-supporting-the-idea-that-men-are-visually-stimulated-but-women-arent
For example, pointing out the science that demonstrates that men are more visually stimulated, doesn't in any way excuse or condone rape. It's just what the studies show. Given that science, it just seems sensible to at least give casual consideration to what one wears and how it might affect others.
But as long are your default position is "Anyone who doesn't agree with 100% of my opinion on this issue is condoning and encouraging rape. Oh, and burka's". It'll be really hard to have a conversation.
Like most things, there is a continuum in this conversation. As long as you're obsessed with the fringe extremes, any sensible conversation is hopeless.
"It also seems your discounting the possibility of the existence of a larger plan or design."
Of course, your "I do not believe that women and girls being raped is part of God's design." is not only out of context, but I also doesn't address the actual comment I actually made.
In this case, if you discount the very possibility that any sort of God directed or ordained plan exists, then your criticism of the particulars is meaningless.
If, however, you do NOT dismiss the possible existence of a plan or design it would seem presumptuous to pass judgement on what the specifics of said plan may be.
I do allow that a good God may well have plans and hopes... But plans for good, not evil. I don't think God "designs plans" to arrange for rape.
Do you?
Dan
Craig, as you are well aware, we have a horrible history of rape in the real world... of treating women as objects and property and sex slaves. We have always had this problem in our world.
What we are saying, we who value women and are listening to the concerns many of them are raising, is that we must change our ways... we HAVE to change this notion that Marshall is pushing that lends aid to the perverts and rapists that women SHARE in the blame when they are raped IF they wear something "too provocative..." (without saying what is and isn't "too provocative.")
Hell, no. There is no, "rapists are wrong... BUT..." There is just Rapists are wrong. Period.
You do not appear to be prepared to agree that this sort of language lends support to rapists and oppressors. Am I right?
If so, that's on your head. I'm working to see that sort of victim blaming/shaming to end, as it harms.
To your repeated references to porn, I'm not defending porn. Indeed, it appears that they data shows that it often involves oppression, if not outright slavery and rape. Hell, no.
I don't know that it's always the case that women are manipulated into it and I think it's possible that some women feel empowered by sexual acting out on video and I question the wisdom of that, but I'm not judging them. But neither am I defending porn.
~Dan
I'm sure God appreciates the fact that you "allow" that He might have some degree of "hope" about how things might turn out. That's so very gracious of you to "allow" Him that.
As far as your sanctimonious "we who respect women" crap (as if anyone who doesn't parrot back your exact words doesn't respect women), it's just words. Hell, you even try to weasel your way around condemning porn. "Well, it maybe could might possibly have some small negative effect, but maybe it's empowering and gives women self confidence.".
I've tried to be respectful and patient, but if you can't even make a single comment without mid-representing or twisting what others say, it's just hopeless. It appears that all you want is a platform to laud your moral superiority, not a real discussion of the larger issue. The apparent attitude of "If you don't pitch s fit because some idiot said "I like boobs", then you support rape, sex slavery, and forced marriage. What s ridiculous place to start from. But if that is what gives you the superior feeling you appear to crave, I guess you'll just have to keep it up.
I don't think God "designs plans" to arrange for rape.
Do you?
So, you're not answering it? Is that because you recognize how horrible it sounds you think God is?
The apparent attitude of "If you don't pitch s fit because some idiot said "I like boobs", then you support rape, sex slavery, and forced marriage. What s ridiculous place to start from.
Looking at my words, I'm amazed to find that I never said this. Huh. Craig misunderstood my words, imagine that.
What I'm saying is simply that we should NOT blame women for their clothes choices in being harassed or assaulted or oppressed by men. We should blame men, not the victims.
Damn guys, you can't even agree with something as simple as that.
But okay, I get your points, disgusting as they are. Thanks for your unhelpful thoughts.
Blaming women for "dressing provocatively" is sick as hell and will not be allowed to be posted here. Take your "slut shaming" elsewhere, perverts and rapist defenders. You're crossing lines that won't happen here.
The days of neanderthals are gone, boys. You're relics.
If only you blamed the wealthy or police when people riot in protest, at least you'd be consistent. But the only ones you all are singling out to blame for "flaunting it" are women. Showing that you don't have a problem with flaunting it, you have a problem with women.
Shame on you.
That's impressive,the amount of misrepresentation you've managed to cram into 3 short comments.
Oh, the reason I didn't answer your ridiculous "question", is that I never said anything remotely like "God plans rape". I pointed out the false premise and moved on.
I guess if that and name calling is all you have.,....
Oh, don't forget burkas.
Just a reminder of one point you all are ignoring: If "dressing modestly" prevented the violent crime of rape, sexual assault or just sexual harassment, then there'd be no rape in Muslim extremist nations/communities. Violence against women hasn't disappeared in these places. That's because sexual oppression is not generally about skimpy clothes, it's about violence and caveman-like attitudes of men.
To the point of this post and the reason why we are insisting that there is an end to victim blaming/shaming.
If nothing else, be gentlemanly enough not to be a dick.
Craig, YOU suggested that, for some people, rape might be considered to be part of God's plan. Indeed, you were chastising me, I believe, for denying that God might not have a hand in planning rape.
What you said:
It also seems your discounting the possibility of the existence of a larger plan or design.
What I clarified, and then asked for clarification on your part:
I do not believe that women and girls being raped is part of God's design. I believe God to be good, not evil.
I guess you DO believe that girls being raped is part of God's plan?
Did you answer? No. What you said, was...
Nice job of taking my comment out of the context I offered it and twisting it into something else entirely. (The context was in response to your comment about what people say at funerals)
Which is not an answer to the question that was asked. I still don't know what you think. It SOUNDED like you were suggesting that rape is part of God's plans for some girls.
Instead of answering, you again said something else...
I'm sure God appreciates the fact that you "allow" that He might have some degree of "hope" about how things might turn out. That's so very gracious of you to "allow" Him that.
...attacking me for not thinking that rape is part of God's plan for girls.
Now, here you're responding...
the reason I didn't answer your ridiculous "question", is that I never said anything remotely like "God plans rape".
RESPONDING, but still not answering. Your suggestions that I am wrong for not believing that God plans for girls to get raped make it SOUND like you DO believe it. Do you get that? Why not clarify?
In fact, clarify, or go away.
Answer the question asked of you.
If you agree with me, that God does NOT plan for girls to be raped (and what a fucking ridiculous thing to have to say!), then why are you criticizing MY position (again, I stated clearly that MY position is that God does not plan for girls to be raped... you keep criticizing my position... what am I to think?)
Answer or go away. I insist, for clarity's sake.
Thank you.
Oh, and to clarify your mistake a bit more. You said...
Nice job of taking my comment out of the context I offered it and twisting it into something else entirely. (The context was in response to your comment about what people say at funerals)
What I SAID was NOT ABOUT FUNERALS, but about rape. Look again...
It's like people of goodwill approaching a
grieving family of a rape victim
and blithely saying, "it must have been part of God's plan.."
Now, no doubt you saw "grieving family" and assumed I was speaking of a funeral and just didn't read closely enough to see that it was about rape, not about a funeral (although the victim could have been killed, as well, as many women oppressors will do both). Nonetheless, that is your fault, not mine.
Does that help you understand why I responded with "some people may want to punch you in the face" if you were to suggest God planned their girl's rape?
That you misread what I said is not my fault.
The fact that you start out by blatantly falsely representing Art's and my position doesn't speak well for the rest of your comment.
Absolutely nothing I said could possibly lead you to conclude that I said rape is part of God's plan. In fact, the way my statement/question was worded was intentionally designed to speak to your view on the existence of any plan or design by God. It was intentionally broad. So, your sort of right in that I corrected your false premise instead of answering the question based on the false premise.
So, why would you demand I answer a question based on a false premise.
Your problem is that you can't distinguish between what it "sounded" like to your biased ears, and what I actually said. The fact that you misunderstood, chose not to ask for clarification, and just went with what it "sounded like", isn't my problem.
Now if you want to ask a non stupid question based on what I said, I'll gladly answer.
I apologize for missing the grieving over rape, my bad.
Although my larger point of how one responds to grief in any form is based on relationships, and intent. I certainly wouldn't suggest that God planned for someone to get raped.
See, it's not that difficult to admit mistakes when warranted.
why would you demand I answer a question based on a false premise.
Because it sounded like, TO ME, that this is what you were saying. I'm not making it up. It SOUNDS like you're suggesting "Everything is part of God's plan, even death, even rape, even rape of girls."
Since that is what it sounded like and yet it's hard to believe, I asked you the question for clarification. THAT is why I would demand an answer to a question where I didn't know your answer.
The question, then, is why wouldn't I ask a question to clarify your position?
It's what people do when they want to know the answer.
And I'll rush to say that I still am not confident of what your answer is to the question.
After all, it's not like it's an unheard of argument. I offer this GOP representative being questioned about the matter...
“Is rape the will of God?” asked Rep. Cory Williams.
Mr Faught replied: “If you read the Bible, there’s actually a couple circumstances where that happened and the Lord uses all circumstances.
“I mean, you can go down that path, but it’s a reality, unfortunately.”
When Mr Williams pushed him on whether both rape and incest were the will of God, Mr Faught followed up: “It’s a great question to ask, and, obviously if it happens in someone’s life, it may not be the best thing that ever happened. But, so you’re saying that God is not sovereign with every activity that happens in someone’s life and can’t use anything and everything in someone’s life, and I disagree with that.”
He, like you, is vague and unclear on the point, which is why reporters kept asking, seeking clarification.
Given that confusion, why not clarify by stating clearly and unequivocally: RAPE OF GIRLS IS NOT PART OF GOD'S PLAN, in my opinion.
More...
Just to walk you through, for clarity's sake, I said:
It's like people of goodwill approaching a grieving family of a rape victim and blithely saying, "it must have been part of God's plan.."
You said...
It also seems your discounting the possibility of the existence of a larger plan or design.
And just recently said...
Absolutely nothing I said could possibly lead you to conclude that I said rape is part of God's plan.
I guess you're recognizing now why I DID have something you said that could possibly lead me to that conclusion?
Oh, and I apologize, I DO see where you just said that you do NOT think that rape is part of God's plan. So, okay, cool, it sounds like we're on the same page at least on that much.
Marshall, I told you that if you repeated a "blaming/shaming the victim" line, that it would be deleted. That language will not stand here. You've done that, I've removed it.
I won't allow you to abuse other people here, I won't allow you to abuse women here. And I sure as hell won't allow you to abuse victims here. Good God, man, have some decency.
Regardless, my blog, my rules.
~Dan
Oh so you do finally admit that there is s difference between what something "sounfs" like "to you" filtered through your biases and prejudices, and the reality of what was said.
I guess getting you to acknowledge your initial misrepresentation of our position is asking too much.
It does seem that you have some difficulties differentiating between something someone said somewhere and what actual individuals specifically say here. The fact that your excuse is that some guy said something would be pretty laughable, if you didn't have a bit of a habit of trying to hold people to account for what other people have said.
You're a liar as well as a coward. But let's assume, just because you stupidly need to think so, that your twisted and cowardly misrepresentation is absolutely correct. It should then be a simple thing to expose the flaw in my argument. But apparently you're too much of a simpleton to try. It's enough fir you to once again demonstrate that famous Christian grace and call me a dick, and other such lovely things. Funny how you never see a dick like me doing that at my blog.
In the meantime, it's obvious to honest people the irony in someone like you who supports and enables the murder of millions of females every year saying I'm abusive to women for suggesting they dress more modestly.
I guess getting you to acknowledge your initial misrepresentation of our position is asking too much.
By all means, clarify what you think was a misrepresentation and I'll be glad to address it. Given that you've just spent several hours arguing something mistakenly because of a misunderstanding in your reading, and your history of doing so without ever admitting it, I'd be surprised if this is anything but another misunderstanding on your part of what I've said, but I'm not perfect at all... it could be the case that I misrepresented you. So, please clarify.
Thanks.
Had an interesting related discussion yesterday. I woman in my class wants to exercise what she considered a prudent choice to limit her right to complete for the business of a certain demographic because she is concerned about her safety.
This supports my contention that there are times when prudence suggests that the best choice is to not exercise our individual rights but to choose a higher degree of safety instead.
Clearly this isn't a panacea, nothing is, but reasonable people have to make reasonable choices about balancing their actions against other peoples potential reactions.
Note, I'm trying to take this a step or two back from the specific, and make a point about some general principles that most reasonable people live by.
The first paragraph of your 7/20/17 at 5:20 comment, completely (possibly intentionally) misrepresents my position.
I have to note the irony inherent in your pointing out that I spent some time responding to something because I missed one word (even though the principle still holds), while you conviently choose to ignore the fact that you did the same thing for much longer.
Just one more instance of the Dan double standard.
There is no 7/20 comment, as this post went up on 7/24. Why not just copy and paste it?
Dan
7/26. Sorry for the typo. I don't paste it because I'm doing it from my phone, which doesn't cut/paste well. Why, is it too much to ask you to scroll?
I too had a discussion with a woman at work just last shift. She had been a "hugger", but has now decided she will no longer be one because someone got the idea that she would welcome a more salacious advance. She understands that her practice of hugging people was a definite factor in this dude getting this idea. While nothing she could do could guarantee the guy would not do something equally stupid, she recognizes that had she not been a hugger, then the jerk would have one less argument for rationalizing why he thinks it's cool taking such liberties. Is she blaming herself, or merely recognizing the realities of the situation?
I will say that I have no problem shaming YOU for your behavior during this discussion. It's reprehensible and shows once again that you do not "embrace grace".
Here's a sad news story today...
the remains of 17-year-old Ally Steinfeld were discovered in a burn pile near the mobile home of one of the suspects, as well as in a bag inside of a chicken coop.
Two of the women facing first-degree murder charges reportedly told authorities that they helped burn Steinfeld’s body after a man gouged the teen’s eyes out and repeatedly stabbed her in the genitals.
Can you all condemn this unequivocally, or would you feel the need to say, "Well, if she wasn't dressing that way..."
No need to say anything if you can't condemn this atrocity unequivocally. Let your silence be your testimony to the sad state of your soul.
Seriously: If you can't condemn it, period, then don't comment. It will be deleted.
Craig, the first paragraph of the 5:20 comment goes like this:
Just a reminder of one point you all are ignoring: If "dressing modestly" prevented the violent crime of rape, sexual assault or just sexual harassment, then there'd be no rape in Muslim extremist nations/communities. Violence against women hasn't disappeared in these places. That's because sexual oppression is not generally about skimpy clothes, it's about violence and caveman-like attitudes of men.
You claim it "completely (possibly intentionally) misrepresents my position."
What position is it I'm misrepresenting? That "dressing modestly prevents rape, etc..."? Fair enough, my apologies if that's not your position. Feel free to clarify.
MY point remains: When men harass/assault women, it is always and ONLY the man's fault. Period.
Can you agree unequivocally with that? Just to clarify.
Marshall does not appear to be able to agree with it, and that's what I'm objecting to.
You have said some things which make me unsure of where you stand.
Feel free to clarify.
Oh, and that news story was about a transgender young woman.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-people-charged-relation-death-174510608.html
As to your "news story", by what possible rationale would we not condemn the actions of the murderers? What a stupid question.
Yes, your claim that my position is that "modesty prevents violent crime", is false. As to intent, I guess in your world intent doesn't matter.
Again, of course I agree that people are responsible for their actions. But holding people responsible for their actions does not mean that we ignore the circumstance that may or may not have influenced those actions.
My point remains, that if your goal here is to simply demonize those who aren't in lockstep with your rage, then you've succeeded. If you're point is that you can't differentiate between "should" and "must", then you've succeeded. If your point is that, liberty, autonomy, and individual rights are to be expressed fully without regard to potential negative consequences, then you've succeeded. If your point is that counseling prudence and caution is wrong, then you've succeeded. If your point is to continue to demonstrate your double standards, then you've succeeded. If your point is that you don't agree with the legal principle of apportioning responsibility, you've succeeded.
I'm not sure what has prompted your jihad against prudence and modesty, but it frankly seems a bit unhinged.
Marshall, you need to stop your enthusiastic support of rape, murder, I gouging, and burkas.
Craig, my point is quite simple.
Murderers, rapists, oppressors and sexist, racist jackasses are 100% responsible for their violent/oppressive behaviors.
It's never a single bit of the fault of the victims.
Now, seeing as how I have never argued against prudence or recognizing that there are perverts and creeps out in the world, your suggestion about how you're reading my words to advise against prudence are simply another instance of you misreading my words.
I duly noted, for instance, that if I were in a locale that didn't support human liberties, that I might opt to adapt to the anti-freedom location's stupid prejudices.
But, IF I did opt to wear, for instance, a gay pride shirt to a klan rally and someone there opted to assault me because my shirt drew their attention, it remains 100% the fault of the oppressor/assailant, not my fault that they are idiots.
My point, then, is that it is always the fault of the oppressor, never the fault of the victim.
With that clarification, are we in agreement?
...and my further point was that those who say, "Yes, the rapist was at fault... BUT, she was wearing 'provocative clothing'..." are part of the problem. Not that they are the rapists, but that such words lend aid and support to the rapists.
Do you agree with that, because that is where I'm hearing you balk the most.
What would it suggest if, hypothetically, an organization (maybe one that receives government funding) was engaged in hiding and facilitating those who are engaging in practices that harm women? What conclusions might it be reasonable to draw about this hypothetical organization? What conclusions would it to draw about those who might support such a hypothetical organization?
Aiding those who cause harm to others is not a good thing.
Now, would you like to clarify your position and answer my questions?
I guess I'll have to repeat myself. People are responsible for their actions.
I guess I'd have to ask for clarification on one thing. What if the rapist (pervert, murderers etc), are under the influence of one of the drugs you would like to legalize/decriminalize? What if they have some sort of mental or developmental condition? What if they're just made that way, they just have a genetic predisposition toward that behavior?
But, more than that, you haven't answered the question that spawned this whole thread. The one that is the title to this post.
Why? What positive results come from women dressing provocatively? Does it help them achieve equality in the workplace? Does it not serve to perpetuate the objectification of women? What purpose does it serve to wear a low cut/unbuttoned shirt, if not to draw attention to the revealed areas of the anatomy? Doesn't wearing extremely short shorts with the word "pink" or "juicy" printed on the back just broadcast "look at my ass"?
In all seriousness, what objective good is served, what positive result is expected, when one chooses to dress provocatively?
I guess I'll have to repeat myself:
I GET THAT YOU BLAME the assailants for their actions.
My question to you is: Do you agree that it is 100% the fault of the rapist, for instance, or the catcalled, for instance, for harming/oppressing women, regardless of what the women were wearing?
My point is that it is not ever, in any way, the woman's fault, simply because a pervert found her mode of dress "enticing..." It's 100% the fault of the oppressor/harmer.
My second point is that those who say, "Yes, BUT..." are part of the problem. That they are giving aid and comfort to the rapists and oppressors.
Do you agree to the points I'm actually making?
Do you agree that Marshall is wrong to disagree, that he is, indeed, part of the problem.
And no, drug abuse doesn't matter, it's still wrong and 100% the fault of the one doing the harm.
Do you disagree?
In all seriousness, what objective good is served, what positive result is expected, when one chooses to dress provocatively
In all seriousness, those who blame women for "dressing provocatively" are part of the problem. Don't be a dick, don't be part of the problem.
It is not one bit of anyone else's business how a woman or you choose to dress. It IS part of the problem when people frame it as "she dressed 'provocatively...'"
What objective good is served when we acknowledge this? Liberty. Human rights. An end to oppression. Are these not Good enough reasons?
If you get that I blame victims, then you're either being intentionally obtuse or stupid. You'd know that because I've never actually said that I blame victims.
More so, I've been clear repeatedly that people are responsible for their actions.
But please continue to misrepresent what I've actually said, and to substitute your fantasy version of what you'd liked me to have said.
But please, continue to focus on demonizing and categorizing your opponents instead of looking beyond your misplaced outtage.
Or, I'm seeing you give a pass to Marshall when he blames victims, which makes me wonder, which is why I raise the question.
The question, then, is why would you not gladly say, "No, the victim is in no way to blame! Of course not! Regardless of what they wear (or don't wear)!"
Why would you not agree Marshall is wrong to blame the victims? To shame them for what they wore which didn't meet Marshall's vague and idiotic notions of not un-provocative enough...?
Asking reasonable questions is not the same as demonizing. It's asking questions to learn the answers and, hopefully, to clarify where people like Marshall are going wrong so the people who lend aid to the rapists (like Marshall) will not, themselves, be aided by those like you.
You're really suggesting that someone high on the meth that you'd like to legalize/decriminalize or with a BAC of .10 is completely 100% in control of and responsible for everything they do?
I'd like to decriminalize drugs because research shows that the problem is best treated as an addiction, not a crime. But wanting to decriminalize drugs is not the same as removing all consequences from someone's actions.
I also support strong punishments for those who drink and drive impaired.
They are responsible for the harmful consequences of their actions, regardless of the reasons.
Again, if you don't want to sound like you're defending rapists, oppressors and their defenders, maybe you should reevaluate the way you say things. Maybe you should just answer the question clearly without these diversions.
"People are responsible for their actions"
Seems pretty simple, straightforward, and without diversion to me.
But, it's just what I've consistently said since the beginning.
Couple quick questions, Dan.
Quote, emphasis mine:
"It’s one of the most infuriating things that can happen to a car owner – and it’s one of the most common forms of larceny in the U.S. The 'smash-and-grab' car break-in. They don’t even steal your whole car, just the valuable items in it – which you then have to painstakingly replace while dealing with the arduous and costly car-repair process.
"While there’s no way to 100% deter these kinds of thieves, there are some common-sense steps you can take to make your vehicle a much less appealing target. Above all, thieves look for opportunities. Make them 'work' for their pilfered prizes, and they’ll most likely just forget it and move on to an easier target."
https://www.nationwide.com/smash-and-grab.jsp
By posting this article, is Nationwide Insurance guilty of blaming the victims of theft and/or "providing aid and comfort" to theives?
If not, why not?
What's the difference?
I just saw a re-post on Facebook that, I believe, encapsulates the ethic Dan is advocating.
The group is called "Gay and Fabulous", and the post is a rainbow and cloud background with the phrase "Be a Slut Do Whatever You Want".
This seems to be advocating engaging in your "right" to do whatever you want to do, without giving much thought to the consequences.
I completely agree that people have the "right" to be a "slut" if they so choose. But, I also agree that there might be negative consequences to the exercise of that "right".
But more so, it looks to me like this is just an example of a self centered, my rights trump anything, worldview. One where self gratification and individual rights are the most important things.
Bubba, I'd answer your question by noting Context. We have, in our historical context, a very real problem with blaming and shaming women for rapes and harassment. There is no such equivalent with robbery victims. It is the historical context of mistreatment and abuse of women that demands this push back against those who'd give aid and support to rapists and oppressors.
Dan
Just saw you're response to Bubba. His post was an exact parallel to the issue at hand. In each, you have a crime, a victim and suggestions about how to mitigate being a victim...which necessarily indicts current victims by their not having acted according to the advice meant to protect them. In short, by your logic, the victims in Bubba's post are indeed being shamed and blamed for their suffering. Only a complete idiot would advise victims, or potential victims "don't change a thing...the potential problems are no reason to do so".
Hey...you're more than welcome to allow your womenfolk to take their chances. Real men...fathers, husbands, boyfriends...care about their women.
Speaking of context. I'd argue that the historic Christian view of humanity. That we are all individually created, unique, people who were created in and bear the very image of God. Would say that the value of women is not based on their physical attributes, but on their intrinsic worth as a person.
But once you move past that, to the place where humanity is nothing more than 1st cousin to chimps and the result of random, undirected, purposeless forces then you get to a place where we fight objectifying women by insisting that how they present themselves has no consequences.
It sure looks like Dan's view on this is leaning more towards Hef than Jesus.
I have to note, that Dan still hasn't given more than "it's their right", in response to the question he used to title this post and to most of the follow ups.
I think that context (sorry, "Context") is overstated in both directions.
There's a universal temptation to assume a person is at fault for ANY calamities that he experienced -- "he had it coming" is a fallacy people apparently held in considering both Job and the man born blind of John 9 -- but there is *NOT* an especial emphasis on female victims of rape, sexual assault, and harassment.
At least, not in this culture there isn't: it's not found in the Bible's accounts of Dinah or David's daughter Tamar, nor is it found in Shakespeare or Hill Street Blues.
Ours isn't a society that condones and even commands honor killings of rape victims -- and, by the way, it's not conservatives who think we have a moral obligation to import by the millions those who do.
Rather, the Christian and traditionally Western virtues of modesty and chivalry are complementary, mutually reinforcing, and historically paired. The rapists themselves might try to pass responsibility off to others (a time-honored tradition of the left, it's worth noting), but the traditionalists who taught that women should behave as ladies for their sakes were ALSO emphatic that men should behave as gentlemen, also for the women's sakes.
One could deride their doing so as patronizing -- wrongly, I believe -- but it's simply a lie that society generally facilitated boorish behavior and worse.
---
But even if it were credible, context is a poor excuse for letting the ends justify the means.
We shouldn't denounce prudence and common sense, we shouldn't so uncharitably attribute the worst possible motives to those who commend prudence and modesty, we shouldn't presumptuously claim that people mean the exact opposite of what they say and so discount their repeated and emphatic and explicit assertions to assign moral culpability entirely to rapists and not to their victims.
And that's not the worst of it.
Your sort of argument has already led to an effort to suspend the presumption of innocence and the right to due process, at least on many college campuses.
Because, it is claimed, rape victims were historically marginalized and even ignored, we must now immediately and universally believe every accusation and punish the accused perpetrator.
The presumption of innocence until being proved guilty, the right to due process including disclosure of the details of the accusation and the identity of the accuser: people who support such basic measures of criminal justice are denounced with almost the exact same wording that you have used -- and with the same arrogance and sanctimony.
They're accused of aiding and abetting rapists.
What do you think, Dan? Do you think due process should apply even in accusations of rape?
Or is that another form of the "push back against those who'd give aid and support to rapists and oppressors" which you believe the historical context justifies?
Well said, Bubba, and exactly what has been intended by comments deleted by the fascist host.
Your sort of argument has already led to an effort to suspend the presumption of innocence and the right to due process, at least on many college campuses.
Bubba, my arguments are as follows:
1. If someone is a rapist or a sexual harasser of women, it is 100% HIS fault. It is 0% the woman's fault. It does not matter in the least if she was in a tiny bikini, or in a dress with a hem 1" above the knee or wearing nothing at all. It is ALL the man's fault. Period.
Do you agree with my actual point?
2. Those who say, "Yes, it IS the man's fault... BUT... she shouldn't have dressed like 'that' (whatever 'that' is...)" are part of the problem. By equivocating and partially blaming/shaming the woman, they are lightening the load of the pervert/rapist/oppressor's guilt. No, it is NOT partially her fault, it is always and every time the man's fault who actually does the vile behavior.
Do you agree with my actual point?
Please answer or don't comment. Thank you.
Dan, if you're going to insist that I answer your questions, courtesy would constrain you to answer mine -- and to answer mine first, since I asked you first.
But I'll let that slide long enough to answer those two questions, with the reasonable expectation that you will not insist I answer any additional questions before reciprocating.
- I agree with point 1, assuming a reasonable definition of rape and harassment.
- I disagree with point 2, because you're claiming that the sample sentence includes any kind of equivocation or "partially blaming/shaming [of] the woman," even despite an explicit assignment of 100% blame on the perpetrator.
Logically a person *CAN* assign 100% of a crime's moral culpability to the criminal while simultaneously commending prudence to reduce the chances of becoming a victim
That fact is true regardless of whether the crime is rape or burglary or fraud or anything else, and if a speaker affirms both, no amount of historical Context changes the affirmation of both. Context DOES NOT override the intent of the speaker, it does not negate an explicit assignment of 100% blame onto the perpetrator, and it doesn't transform a mere commendation of prudence into some reassignment of blame.
--
But I would add something that I do think is too often overlooked, something I previously mentioned but did not emphasize. This commendation of modest attire is only half the picture, and without the other half I can certainly understand how women might think they are given an unfair obligation in how they are supposed to navigate within society.
The simultaneous, complementary, and mutually reinforcing virtue is chivalry.
Just as women should dress and act as ladies, men should dress and act as gentlemen -- and both should act prudently for their own sakes and the sakes of others, both to do right by their neighbors and to avoid needlessly treacherous situations.
I don't see how one could be accused of enabling boorish behavior (or worse) on the part of men if he insists that men treat women with respect.
if you're going to insist that I answer your questions, courtesy would constrain you to answer mine -- and to answer mine first, since I asked you first.
I asked you to answer my questions to establish if you were understanding my words and my actual points, as much of what you had to say in response to my post were not in response to my actual points.
My point is that rape and oppression of women is NOT generally caused by lust over what women wear, it's about power and violence and abuse. Perhaps you were not aware of this. Perhaps you're not aware of the harm done by those who have blamed and shamed women over the centuries. It doesn't sound like you're even aware that this is an existing problem, given what you said here, " but there is *NOT* an especial emphasis on female victims of rape, sexual assault, and harassment."
Really? You're not aware of this as a real problem? Perhaps you should volunteer some hours educating yourself on the topic and offering assistance to rape victims and/or their families, once you've educated yourself so that you don't add to the problem.
Now having clarified that, what questions? Are there any not based on an incorrect understanding of my actual points? Let me take a look...
~Dan
Do you think due process should apply even in accusations of rape?
Yes, due process should apply.
... that's the only question I see that I haven't already addressed/answered (and note: It's not related to the points I'm making on this post). Am I missing something?
~Dan
Thank you for acknowledging that what women wear plays at least some small part.
So, the woman is partially to blame for wearing the wrong thing?
If that is what you're saying, I think that is despicable.
Y'all need to learn what "chivalry" means.
You're the one who said " not generally caused by", not me. If it's "not generally" caused by, then it is sometimes caused by...
So thanks.
I do love how you can't/won't grasp the simple concept that people are responsible for their actions.
Perhaps if you spent more time on what I actually say, instead of making stuff up or asking questions I've already addressed...
I do pay attention to what you say. That's why I ask questions to clarify what you mean.
I also pay attention to what you don't say.
So, thanks.
~Dan
Dan made a comment asking who decides what is "provocative". The answer is the culture. He made a snarky remark about exposed ankles, but that is simply from a time when the culture had higher standards of virtue and modesty...standards more in tune with Scriptural teaching that Dan rejects as he does with so much of Scripture he dislikes. Aside from no longer having the pleasure of seeing half naked women, especially attractive women, I see a return to such standards as beneficial to society and especially pleasing to God.
I would also say that I reject the notion that lust plays no part in rape. It's absurd and I don't care what the "experts" say. If it were the case, why is rape the crime of choice? Because at some point, the rapist was aroused. If it was only about "power and violence and abuse", there are easier ways to indulge those compulsions than struggling to penetrate. Yet the rapist never chooses any other manifestation of his desire to exert power in a violent and abusive way. It's a lie, I believe, to avoid encouraging modest dress, even when doing so might reduce the likelihood that the worst among us might be triggered to act in such a heinous manner. Despite the aspect of "power and violence and abuse" that are said to be the driving factors in rape, lust is without doubt an equal factor for this particular choice of how to express the desire for power over another.
Thank you for the answer, Dan, and I believe the issue of due process is relevant. Let me ask a follow-up on the way to explaining why.
You believe that, historically rape victims have been disproportionately blamed and shamed for being victimized: do you also believe that their accusations of bring raped were disproportionately ignored and doubted?
Perhaps, then, if you spent less time trying than draw assumptions from what I don’t say, and just ask questions not designed to lead or imply...
Art, I’d disagree with your take on rape and power. I believe that the reason why it’s expressed in a sexual manner is that there is an element of being able to degrade as well as exerting power. Clearly there must be an element that is sexually arousing, but I don’t think you can ignore the balance. It’s much nicer and easier to over simplify and say it’s all about X, but this is likely more complex than one cause.
"It's not that you disagree with Muslim extremists, it's just that you draw the line at some point differently than they do. But you still draw a line, because you know what's best for these women, presumably."
It's not that this statement is true. It's just that it's so completely at odds with anything anyone has actually said as to be an object of ridicule.
But you still misrepresent those you disagree with, because you know best what others really mean, presumably.
Craig,
That's what I'm saying...with the notable exception that while it is more complex than saying it's all about X, to suggest it's not also about lust, or that it is not triggered by lust, is inaccurate. I know the party line is that lust is not the issue, but it's rather ludicrous to suggest that only forced sexual intercourse is the only choice for degrading the victim that comes to mind.
What's more, as most rape is by someone known to the victim...so they say...I would insist that lust plays a greater role than "experts" claim. In fact, I would insist that sexual desire for the victim is the initial compulsion that eventually leads to rape and in most cases consent to sexual advances would mitigate the emotions that lead to perpetrator to turn to rape. This seems to me most likely, most logical but "experts" prefer to muddy up the issue with psychobabble. People like Dan eat it up like pudding rather than another soft brown pile it is.
And of course none of this mitigates the guilt of the rapist, despite Dan's desire to make it seem so. That it must be said is unfortunate, but it must be done given Dan's history.
I would also suggest in cases where the victim and attacker are unknown to each other, lust still plays a role, and that lust might often be triggered by having seen another woman scantily clad. Thus, the choices women make in how they dress might impact others negatively without their knowledge. There's nothing the least bit wild about this possibility unless one is keen on trying to defend a woman's right to dress trashy so as to enjoy seeing her do so, which I believe is the case with Dan, though I have no way to confirm it (I just don't believe they guy).
Finally, I agree with Bubba with regard to chivalry on the men's side of the issue. And there's nothing the least bit despicable about men who claim to care about the welfare of women acknowledging how the choices women make play a role in situations in which she finds herself, as that is absolutely true of everyone at all times. It's called "common sense"...something that isn't as common as it should be.
Bubba...
do you also believe that their accusations of bring raped were disproportionately ignored and doubted?
I don't know about "disproportionately." That's your word, not mine.
But historically, rape has been covered over, pushed under, denied and doubted. Are you unaware of this?
Here is a helpful article on victim blaming...
"Victim-blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or abuse is held partly or entirely responsible for the actions committed against them... However, it is not only the perpetrator who engages in the victim-blaming. Perpetrators, bystanders and society and even the victims themselves practice and enforce victim-blaming...
As previously stated, victim-blaming has been happening at least since the beginning of recorded history. There are many examples of victim-blaming in the Old Testament regarding tragedies justified by blaming the victims as sinners...
Another oppressed group who is victim-blamed by their perpetrators are rape survivors. The blaming typically heard directly declares that in order to avoid being harassed or raped women should dress a certain way, behave a certain way and be careful about where they go. One reason women are told this is because cultural sexist expectations and criticisms of women that are used to victim-blame. Many rape survivors have been blamed by their rapists who claim the woman was “asking for it” because of her clothing or behavior...
Society also tends to have an optimism bias, the belief that bad things happen to other people and the world is safe (Britt). By believing the world is a safe place and all abuse is deserved, sociey creates an illusion of control over all of their experiences...
Victim-blaming also gives society a false sense of security by deciding the victim must have done something wrong...
Women are constantly advised by their peers and society on how to behave and dress to avoid harassment and rape. An example of this is when a police officer in Toronto told women if they wanted to avoid getting raped they should “avoid dressing like sluts” (Stampler). Here the police officer is stating that women are raped because of what they wear. By saying this he is also saying that the rape is the woman’s fault because she wore such clothing. This excuse for the rape and blame of the victim is a rape myth regarding gender stereotypes. In some cases to blame the victim, women are represented as seductive, and men at the mercy of women and their natural hormones (Anderson, K.J., Accomando). In other words, women are “asking for it” with their behavior and attire and men cannot control their sexual drive..."
http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=glbtc
Well, just read it, yourself. Or any of the other literature on the topic (at least, the literature that doesn't come from a source biased in favor of promoting victim blaming...).
More on the topic...
"Rape is incredibly common (about one in five women experience sexual assault), and false reports are rare (2 to 8 percent). So if a woman comes forward about being assaulted, Occam's razor suggests she's probably telling the truth.
But our tendency as a society is to assume the opposite — that any explanation other than rape, however implausible, must be the correct one. Did she willingly go somewhere alone with her attacker or wear provocative clothing?...
...Rape culture, and its tendency to blame victims, didn't come out of nowhere. Various legal systems have engaged in it for centuries.
The Code of Hammurabi subjected both the victim and the perpetrator of rape to death sentences — unless the victim was a virgin, in which case the rape was a property crime against her father. Early Hebrew law also sentenced both victim and perpetrator to death, but there were exceptions for the woman if she screamed for help.
The idea that rape is a crime against a woman, and specifically a crime against a woman's body, is relatively new. For most of human history, rape has been treated as a property crime against a woman's husband or father, since they effectively owned her.
For most of American history, women have had to prove that they were chaste, and that they put up extreme resistance, in order to have any hope of winning a court case."
The whole article, again, is helpful and has many links to support the case being made.
https://www.vox.com/2016/5/1/11538748/believe-rape-victims
So the whole rolling stone article was just fine with you?
Fifth attempt to post this, after continued manifestations of what passes for "embracing grace" in Dan's world...that is, deleting:
Well Dan. You've proven yourself to be a complete asshole for daring to accuse me of supporting, defending or excusing rapists. There's absolutely NOTHING in any of my comments that even hints as much except to those who only claim to be Christian but clearly are not...such as yourself.
You think you're standing on some high moral ground, which is typical of those who wallow in immoral campaigning, in a lame attempt to distract from the truth of your corruption. Purposely characterize those who defend virtue and common sense while redefining rank sinfulness as goodness. Humanize evil and wickedness as screenwriters do in portraying historical bad guys as sympathetic characters, so you can protect and elevate sin and those who engage in it...at the same time posturing as some warped version of a champion of the "oppressed".
I'm not surprised you defend the "right" of women to dress provocatively, nor that you pretend those who warn women of the obvious downsides to doing so are "blaming" them for that which befalls them. You pervert notions of blame, guilt and fault in order to enable immorality.
But my position is not delusion. It is not a misunderstanding of the reality of a given situation. It is absolutely the opposite.
My position does not mitigate the guilt of the abuser of women. To recognize how a woman's choices play a role in the consequences of those choices is what we in the real world refer to as "honesty". You can whine about liberty all day long as if you're noble instead of outrageously stupid...and dangerously so. Evil doesn't give a flying rat's ass that you have the right to be stupid without repercussion.
The worst part of it all is that "you have the right to dress any way you like" and "it's not your fault you got raped" is small comfort to the woman who suffered in that way. That's a helluva lot worse than "it's part of God's plan". The latter is true. The former is stupidity. Indeed, it means you share in the guilt of the fate the bad choices of women bring them.
You're an idiot. Delete away, coward. I'm sure you'll be blocking me soon.
Dan has also deleted a comment of mine wherein I draw from two sources to make a point responding to his two articles. I guess only other people are mandated to "embrace grace".
Rolling Stone just got hit with a multi million dollar settlement for a false rape accusation story.
Three Duke lacrosse players were vilified by false rape charges.
Clarence Thomas was hit with unproven charges of rape.
I could go on with stories like a friend of my wife’s who was falsely accused and had his life ruined.
Are these folks just collateral damage on your jihad?
Is it ok to “shame” those who accuse falsely?
There’s been a lot of opinion about what rape is and who’s responsible and so on. What if science actually provided an explanation according to the dominant scientific paradigm which absolved both parties?
I think Dan ignored something similar earlier, but what if it’s our genes fault?
Let's start with professors Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer.
These scientists (biology and anthropology) wrote "A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion is a 2000 book about rape by biologist Randy Thornhill and anthropologist Craig T. Palmer, in which the authors propose that rape should be understood through evolutionary psychology, and criticize the idea, popularized by Susan Brownmiller in Against Our Will (1975), that rape is an expression of male domination that is not sexually motivated. They argue that the capacity for rape is either an adaptation or a byproduct of adaptive traits such as sexual desire and aggressiveness."
This scholarly tome contains such insights such as calling rape "a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of human evolutionary heritage". Akin to the naturalistic process that brought us "the leopards spots and the giraffes elongated neck"
According to Thornhill, "EVERY feature of EVERY living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. THAT'S NOT A DEBATABLE MATTER." (First two emphases added, the third is in the original)
"the capacity for rape is either an adaptation, or, a byproduct of adaptative traits such as sexual desire and aggressiveness that have evolved for reasons that have no direct connection with the benefits or costs of rape."
Perhaps not a widely held scientific conclusion, but if one accepts the philosophical and methodological naturalism that underlies the belief that Darwinian evolution is fact supported by the "best science" we have, then on what basis do you rebut this.
The evidence is clear that the vast majority of evolutionary scientists, evolutionary psychologists and their defenders have argued that whatever ensures the survival of and propagation of ones genes is only natural. In essence, evolution and evolutionary ethics are a package deal
The corollary argument being made here is that if a behavior has survived to the present day must have conferred some evolutionary advantage-otherwise it would have been weeded out by natural selection. Given this preconception, why wouldn't they be driven to identify some evolutionary benefit to rape.
Don't blame me here, I'm just the messenger, pointing out what actual scientists have said. I'm not claiming that they're right, just raising the question how does one deal with it if they are?
It is wrong - horrifyingly wrong, in cases like rape - to falsely accuse someone. I know, it happens to me frequently - although about matters other than rape. We should chastise those who make false accusations.
Fortunately, false rape claims are a rare problem, according to the available data.
I've read no research about a "rape gene," but if it existed, it would still be atrocious behavior. Of course. Because of the great harm to innocent, rape must be opposed and victim's should be supported, not blamed or shamed.
And seriously, why do I even have to say that? I'm finished pointing out the obvious.
Dan
Do you have actual science to demonstrate that these two professors are wrong? Have you looked at their research and found factual errors? How can you say that evolution accounts for the existence and complexity of life and for the existence of humanity, and ground this as a moral wrong? Where is the basis for morals in evolutionary theory? If, as most evolutionists claim, we’re simply animals how can we not behave like our ancestors? Don’t we see the equivalent of rape in other areas on the animal kingdom? If we’re just “computers made of meat”, what intrinsic value do we have?
I know your faced with a dilemma, you (at least partially) accept the underlying naturalist/materialist/Darwinist worldview, yet that worldview has posed a challenge to your personal crusade. I suspect that you’ll handle it by vulgar, expletive laden comments, and increasingly loud repetitions of “rape is bad”. You might even start deleting. You’re faced with science, you can either refute it, deny it or provide scientific proof of another option.
But from a materialistic/naturalistic/Darwinian perspective the only meaningful harm is that which prevents survival of the fittest. Haven’t you ever heard that “Nature is red in tooth and claw?”
"I've read no research about a "rape gene,"..."
I'm not sure the science professors I quoted are actually proposing a "rape gene", but even if that dismissive shorthand was somewhat accurate, it doesn't matter.
1. The fact that you've "read no research", doesn't mean the research doesn't exist or is inaccurate of untrue.
2. I've now given you something to read, if you"re interested in what science professors have to say about the topic.
But, I suspect you'll probably just dismiss the science and try to move on.
1. Of course. Never suggested otherwise.
2. Interesting.
3. (re: "dismiss science...") I've already said that EVEN " if it existed, it [rape] would still be atrocious behavior."
I have no dilemma, Craig, I don't know what you're thinking. The conservatives who are quite often social darwinists (interestingly and appallingly) have a dilemma, but I don't. Just because something is innate, does not mean that it's necessarily good... IF it causes harm.
Alcoholism is probably an innate disorder, according to the science. That doesn't mean that alcoholism is good. It doesn't mean that we give a pass to those who drink and drive or drink and rape or otherwise make decisions that cause harm.
Narcissism and Sociopathy are innate disorders, that doesn't mean we give a pass to those (like Trump, it would appear) who cause harm thanks to their innate conditions.
So, while you appear to think you've found a "gotcha" moment for me, it's only another indication that you don't understand my actual positions.
Dan,
Could you explain what you mean by conservatives being social darwinists. I've never heard that one before.
Social Darwinism: the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform.
The notion of the "survival of the fittest" applied to humans competing in a society/economy.
Hey, if you want to deny science without even investigating that’s your call.
Yes please, let’s see this list of conservative social Darwinists.
You may not realize or acknowledge your dilemma, but it’s pretty clear to the rest of us. Just because you don’t like the ethical and moral realities of your materialist/naturalist/Darwinist position doesn’t mean the problem goes away. Just because you’ve chosen to ignore one more double standard, doesn’t mean it’s not there.
I don’t expect you to acknowledge any of this, I’m just pointing things out.
And you still haven’t really answered the question that titles this post, I wonder why.
Just to clarify. You seem to be saying that even if irrefutable data existed to support the conclusions of the science professors (you don’t have advanced degrees in any of the hard sciences, do you), that rape is beneficial to the evolution of the human species, you would reject that “hard data” in favor of your opinion. That’s interesting. Where have I heard that kind of thing before.
That you don't see that I've answered it, repeatedly, doesn't mean that it isn't answered.
...that rape is beneficial to the evolution of the human species, you would reject that “hard data” in favor of your opinion.
I rather doubt that you're understanding their reasoning correctly, given your problems with understanding the meaning of others' words.
Killing off sickly children or "undesirables" could be called "beneficial" to a species from a strictly Darwinist viewpoint (i.e., really more of social Darwinism, too, it seems to me), does not mean that humans need conclude that it is wise or moral to embrace such an approach.
Modern Social Darwinism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/republicans-social-darwinism_b_1124379.html
Here's another interesting article...
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/438818/donald-trump-social-darwinism-21st-century-incarnation-old-malady
Dan
I’m confused, I’ve provided you with some actual science that contradicts your position from the standpoint of the “best science” paradigm we have. But instead of refuting or even studying the science, you change the subject to (seemingly) endorse infanticide. It’s a strange method of dealing with the situation at hand to say the least.
Did you actually read the NR article, of just the Huffpo summary of it? Or did you look behind the headline?
I don't know wha you THINK "contradicts my position," but it is almost certainly a misunderstanding on your part.
For another thing, I don't know that anyone is saying that your interpretation of this cited research (which I have not looked into as it is irrelevant to anything I've said) is the "best science" (that is, either your understanding - which remains dubious - or what this cited research is actually saying).
If you read in the Reception portion of Wikipedia's entry on Thornhill/Palmer's theories, you can see some pushback against their theories from other scientists.
So, again, I don't know what you think "contradicts my position," but you are almost certainly misunderstanding it.
I read the NR article.
instead of refuting or even studying the science, you change the subject to (seemingly) endorse infanticide.
Again, not understanding my point, if an endorsement of infanticide is what you are understanding.
The social darwinists and regressives might reach that conclusion, but not the progressives.
You’re the one who said that evolution is supported by the “best science” we have, I’m just taking you st your word.
I’m surprised that you would say that scientific study of the evolutionary benefits of rape are not relevant to your position. I’m aware of the pushback to Thornhill, the problem with the pushbavk is that the Darwinian worldview doesn’t give any basis for pushback consistent with the paradigm.
If you read the article, then perhaps you noticed that there wasn’t any actual direct link to any actual specific conservatives, positions, or policies.
Again, your the one offering infanticide not I.
As usual, your welcome to prove your claims.
I’ll offer this. Hillary is a huge fan of Margret Sanger and her legacy, I hardly think she’s conservative. I’ll drop a list later, if evidence matters.
That you are unaware of any basis for pushback against social darwinism (from progressive types, anyway) is not an indication that there is none, consistent with the paradigm.
I am not offering infanticide, but conservative social darwinists do, when they are consistent with the paradigm.
Craig, this post is about how it's wrong to blame the victim. I think I'll pass on chasing these other rabbits that are not on the topic of the post.
Progressives are NOT for social darwinism. It is an idea traditionally espoused (although not in that name) by conservatives. Indeed, blaming the victim is very in fitting with conservative SD, but this post is specifically against that.
"Science" does not advocate blaming/shaming the victim, so don't go there, either.
Instead, why not just join with me in saying it is always wrong to blame victims and that Marshall is wrong to do so?
Or just let it go, otherwise.
~Dan
Are you really suggesting that the Peter Singers of the world are conservative? Are you suggesting that Lenin, and Sanger, and those in the eugenics movement are conservative. Just in general are you suggesting that those who teach evolutionary science and evolutionary psychology are conservative? I’d really need to see some actual evidence, with some really specific examples. Your NR article just didn’t have any.
Ooh course, I’ve never said it’s right to blame the victim, I’ve never said anything other than people are responsible for their actions. But, let’s pretend otherwise.
The reason the evolutionary support for rape is relevant is;
1. If rape is a positive step forward for the human race (as they argue), then the victim is actually contributing toward the greater good.
2. If rape is an evolutionary positive, then the impetus to tape is beyond control. It’s simply a behavior we see in mammals and as such it’s neuteal.
I realize you don’t see the contradiction (well put in the pithy quote I used earlier), in trying to get morality from an inherently amoral worldview.
You fail to understand my positions and, thus, see contradictions where there are none with my actual positions.
Understanding is always a concern. Poor understanding is always harmful. Dan is more often guilty of the latter than he ever is of the former. Case in point:
True victim-shaming/blaming would be those who insist, imply or suggest that rape victims in any way deserved to be raped due to how they behave, dress, because they're prostitutes, etc. That's a far cry from pointing out what could have been done differently to lessen the potential or to better prevent the likelihood of such an event.
The question is whether or not Dan is bright enough to see the obvious distinction, in which case the women in his life are at risk, or rather is Dan ignoring the distinction, in which case the women in his life are at risk. If course there is also the sad reality that Dan's mantra of "embrace grace" is a sham, as he shows no sign of embracing grace towards those who understand the distinction and act on behalf of women by acknowledging it.
The women in my wife are wise and strong and don't need me to tell them anything about what clothes they do or don't wear.
Maybe you're presuming a bit much about women's stupidity, Marshall?
Maybe that's part of why it's sexist.
~Dan
I just feel compelled to note, that you’ve been given an ufettered forum to expound on your views to whatever degree you would like, with as little direction as possible, yet you’ve chosen to limit explaining you’re worldview and positions because you want me to write more.
It’s also seems pretty obvious that you don’t/won’t see any inconsistencies or contradictions in your positions whether they’re really there or not.
Dan, I do not believe the presumption of innocence is a digression; it is, instead, a very live issue -- leftists are criticizing the current administration for seeking to restore due process in colleges -- and the arguments against the presumption of innocence are mere extensions of your arguments about the commendation of prudence and modesty.
You say that commending prudence and modesty is equivalent to -- or even identical with -- blaming the victims of rape and assisting the perpetrators of rape.
Others would say that the presumption of innocence is equivalent to DOUBTING the victims and assisting the perpetrators.
They make the same statistical claims that you quote, that sexual assault is a common and nearly universal experience for women and that false accusations are -- as you put it -- "a rare problem."
You quote one article as saying, "For most of American history, women have had to prove that they were chaste, and that they put up extreme resistance, in order to have any hope of winning a court case."
One could argue that the accuser's chances of winning in court would go up dramatically if the accused bore the burden of proof, if he had to prove his innocence rather than have her prove his guilt.
The cause for weakening the presumption of innocence and other parts of due process even has a pithy slogan:
LISTEN AND BELIEVE.
We must listen to the accuser, and we must believe the accuser, EVERY TIME, not only in our personal relationships but in the criminal justice system as well.
I'm glad to see that you're not quite so radical as that, but if you believe that your support of due process does not make you an accomplice to rape, maybe you shouldn't accuse others of aiding and abetting rapists with their support of the virtues of modesty and prudence.
--
And, about this:
"It is wrong - horrifyingly wrong, in cases like rape - to falsely accuse someone. I know, it happens to me frequently - although about matters other than rape. We should chastise those who make false accusations."
I think I'm justified in inferring an allusion to our conclusion that you are frequently dishonest and arguing in bad faith.
But in the same day that you claim to oppose false accusations, and in the same thread, you turn around are presume to offer a serious medical diagnosis of someone you have almost certainly never met, whom you do not personally know.
"Narcissism and Sociopathy are innate disorders, that doesn't mean we give a pass to those (like Trump, it would appear) who cause harm thanks to their innate conditions." [emphasis mine]
Tell us again how much you hate false and presumptuous accusations -- and, while you're at it, tell us again why we shouldn't draw the obvious conclusion about your willingness to argue in bad faith and, most especially, your hypocrisy in seeking to impose on others rules and standards you do not even attempt to follow yourself.
Re: Trump and Narcissm...
There are some conditions that are relatively obvious and can be diagnosed fairly easily.
If a man has a hole in his arm and is bleeding profusely, one can diagnose, "well hell! He's been shot or stabbed or something!" and take helpful actions. If a man is coughing up blood, one may not know exactly the trouble, but they can reasonably diagnose it as a serious problem. Even if you're not a doctor.
Many professionals in mental health are stating what is observable and evident. Now, it's not an official diagnosis, but a rational observation. Trump COULD only be acting mentally disturbed, it's entirely possible and we can't rule it out without an actual diagnosis.
But there's nothing presumptuous in saying a bleeding man is bleeding.
Take it up with the experts.
As an aside, have none of you all had psychology classes or been signifixantly exposed to those with mental health disorders? Do you not recognize the rather obvious signs?
Dan
I'm tempted to say that I do recognize the rather obvious signs of mental health disorders, and yet I keep writing to you, but that cheap shot would devalue my very sincere belief that you have significant issues appear to be moral in nature, not psychological or intellectual.
I'll just reiterate my repeated point that, since you feel free to reach derogatory conclusions about others based on their words, you're in no position to insist that others do not do likewise with you.
The occasional inconsistency is a mark of mere humanity -- we all slip up, none of us always think through (AND act upon) the implications of our stated beliefs when they cross our self-interest -- but your resolute determination to use double standards is much worse than that and is inexcusable.
since you feel free to reach derogatory conclusions about others based on their words, you're in no position to insist that others do not do likewise with you.
1. I cite expert psychiatric opinion on Trump when I note what seems obvious.
2. I'm doing that specifically with leaders because the stakes are higher if you have a madman in office than just a standard, street level madman. If Trump were just a sad, perverted TV celebrity insane person, I'd be more sympathetic/have fewer harsh words for him.
3. When Marshall states something that is clearly and demonstrably an opinion and insists that it's a fact (one that he can't and won't prove), it does sound delusional. On the other hand, when you all disagree with people like me, it's because you disagree with my opinion and not because I'm lying. You have no data to support a claim that I'm lying, nor that I'm being dishonest.
You just don't.
That you think that you do doesn't mean that you do. You simply can't prove it.
And that's a fact.
And I know that you can't prove it because, in fact, I know I'm not being dishonest.
1. Really, you know of specific expert diagnosis that you can cite?
I’m pretty sure you’ve insisted that what can’t be proven, can’t be known as a fact. I guess that’s negotiable when it needs to be.
Marshall, you're a pig. A sexist pig who is probably just too damned stupid to know what a pig you are.
Bubba, Craig, now's your chance to step up and denounce Marshall for his ugly-as-hell sexism. Show your "chivalry."
Marshall, no more comments from you on this post. You just either don't know that you're making perverse, gross, filthy comments or you know and you don't give a damned. Either way, no more comments, not on this post. Anything you post will be deleted.
I will consider reconsidering if you recognize your bigotry and perverse nature of your comments and apologize convincingly. But that is not forthcoming, I'm sure.
You disgust me, in your perversion. I sure as hell hope you're not as disgusting in real life as you portray yourself online.
~Dan
1. Really, you know of specific expert diagnosis that you can cite?
I didn't say a diagnosis. That comes after direct interaction with a mental health specialist. What I said was that "I cite expert psychiatric opinion..."
Like this guy (psychologist, but that's not the point)...
"If you take President Trump’s words literally, you have no choice but to conclude that he is psychotic...
Much has been written about Trump having narcissistic personality disorder. As critics have pointed out, merely saying a leader is narcissistic is hardly disqualifying. But malignant narcissism is like a malignant tumor: toxic.
Psychoanalyst and Holocaust survivor Erich Fromm, who invented the diagnosis of malignant narcissism, argues that it “lies on the borderline between sanity and insanity.” Otto Kernberg, a psychoanalyst specializing in borderline personalities, defined malignant narcissism as having four components: narcissism, paranoia, antisocial personality and sadism. Trump exhibits all four."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/04/trump-malignant-narcissistic-disorder-psychiatry-column/101243584/
He is only one of many.
So, yes, I can support what I said, I can cite expert opinion on Trump's mental state.
~Dan
I’d say two random psychiatrists might not rise to the level of proof, maybe informed opinion, but not proof. What you might want to prove to be more convincing is what their political leanings are, and whether or not they were involved in campaigning for or supporting Clinton.
However, I was talking about your claim that it’s a “fact” that you aren’t lying. If the only facts that exist are those that can be proven, then your claim is problematic.
BTW, this comment you keep deleting must be incredibly heinous. It must demonstrate that Art is raving, foaming at the mouth, crazed in his attempts to impose his particularly virulent brand of: racism, sexism, anti Semitism, rape loving, degrading of innocents, evil, nastiness, and expletive laden vulgarity, I guess we should extol your virtue in protecting the world from this horrific evil. So, while I thank you from the bottom of my heart for keeping this trash away from possibly causing me offense, your insistence that I join in your crusade of denunciation and vitriol about something I've never been able to actually read strikes me as odd to say the least.
I'm closing comments on this post, as there has been nothing notably added in the comments. If a visitor would like to add a productive comment here, please let me know.
Post a Comment