Feminist Misrepresentation in Libertarianism

Mika,

What would you say to me if I went into a predominently Muslim area whilst carrying an Israel flag and declaring the God of the Hebrews is greater than all, then was beaten up?

Clayton:

It's claiming that it should not be said that how you dress, act and where you go (thus, who you associate with) affects the likelihood you could be the victim of a crime (rape, in this particular instance) which is just... idiotic. [...]  If you live in a dangerous neighborhood, don't walk around with a gold watch flashing on your wrist for all to see. It's just plain dumb.

gotlucky:

Wow. This is some impressive straw manning of what Clayton actually said. Keep it up.

?

No need to play dumb. You know what you did. Clayton talks about one thing, you talk about another and pretend that is what he was talking about. You have fun with that.

gotlucky:

No need to play dumb. You know what you did. Clayton talks about one thing, you talk about another and pretend that is what he was talking about.

Not playing...

 

Clayton:

That meme is idiotic. Just replace "men" with "people" and "rape" with "mugging". It IS stupid to dress and act certain ways in certain places... I mean, this is just braindead.

Clayton -

(as if the poster (which he calls a meme) said otherwise.  And you want to cry strawmanning on someone else?)

Clayton:

It's claiming that it should not be said that how you dress, act and where you go (thus, who you associate with) affects the likelihood you could be the victim of a crime (rape, in this particular instance) which is just... idiotic.

Who's strawmanning again?

Clayton:

If you live in a dangerous neighborhood, don't walk around with a gold watch flashing on your wrist for all to see. It's just plain dumb.

Clayton:

This braindead bourgeois mentality that "I can walk wherever I want, whenever I want, however I want" is puerile

 

mikachusetts:

If Bert were to point out how the war on drugs normalizes agression in the inner-city by making dispute resolution over drug money and property illegal, you would recognize this as an insightful analysis.  You probably wouldn't feel compelled to say "yeah, but you shouldn't be walking around North Avenue at night."  I mean, its obvious that such an analysis doesn't equal a "braindead bourgeois mentality that I can walk wherever I want, whenever I want, however I want."

Yet, if Bert or any other libertarian feminist points out how slut shaming normalizes and perpetuates rape culture, the common response seems to be along these lines; "dont wanna get raped?  Dress like an Amish bag lady and stay in the kitchen." (I exagerate, of course, but the idea is the same).

Primetime:

That's how I saw it.  [...] The whole point is that by alleging "she shouldn't have been wearing that" the victim is being saddled with blame, when they did absolutely nothing wrong.  The poster says nothing about how "wise" it is to walk around flashing your boobs or your Rolex in a dodgy area.  Nor does it "claim that it should not be said that how you dress, act and where you go affects the likelihood you could be the victim of a crime".  It says to suggest that victims should prevent crimes by maintaining a certain dress code, inherently says that men are not in control of their own actions, and are essentially Pavlov's dog.

 

Yes, you are straw manning Clayton, as was Mikachusetts. Clayton's point had to do with prudence, not morality. Would you try to climb Mount Everest without any experience in hiking or camping? Would you go into the Amazon jungle without serious experience? Would you drive 100 mph in a rain storm? Would you go camping in bear-infested woods?

Maybe you think you should have the right to not be attacked by bears when you go hiking. Maybe you think that you have the right to have your car not skid out of control when driving 100 mph in a rainstorm. Is that what you think?

All Clayton is saying is that given certain circumstances, certain actions are foolish. He is not making any claims about the morality of the victim or the criminal. Here is what you said, and I will bold the sections that are especially damning:

Primetime:

 

That's how I saw it.  The poster above is accurate.  It makes no difference if you are statistically safer from being aggressed upon in one area versus another, or you decrease your odds of being violated by abiding by a certain dress code.  The whole point is that by alleging "she shouldn't have been wearing that" the victim is being saddled with blame, when they did absolutely nothing wrong.

The poster says nothing about how "wise" it is to walk around flashing your boobs or your Rolex in a dodgy area.  Nor does it "claim that it should not be said that how you dress, act and where you go affects the likelihood you could be the victim of a crime".  It says to suggest that victims should prevent crimes by maintaining a certain dress code, inherently says that men are not in control of their own actions, and are essentially Pavlov's dog.  Jargon does make a good point that some men are dogs, but that still doesn't follow that somehow it is the victim's fault when she becomes victimized, and that the solution to such problems is that she should follow a certain code of conduct at all times, so as not to be aggressed upon.

If we lived in a town where you couldn't go outside your house without being attacked, and someone said "it's ridiculous that someone should be expected to simply never go outside if they don't want to get attacked"...it seems like the response from people here would be: "How idiotic.  You want to claim that going outside doesn't affect the likelihood of you getting attacked?  It's simple, if you don't want to be assaulted, stay inside.  It's perfectly logical.  You're braindead if you think there's something wrong with that."

The bold is just not what Clayton was saying. It's a straw man, period. Furthermore, I underlined your entire last paragraph because it just misses the point. Would you go into a lion pen at a zoo? What about the bears? No? Why? Because it's fucking suicide. If you live in a town where it is certain that you will be attacked just by going outside, then going outside is clearly dangerous and you need to take precautions if you are to go outside. Does this make the situation right? Of course not. But that is not at all what Clayton was addressing. He was addressing the fact that certain actions are foolish in certain situations. He did not say that the victim is at fault, and he has never said that. He is just saying that people should be more prudent in their actions instead of having an entitled middle class attitude.

gotlucky:

Maybe you think you should have the right to not be attacked by bears when you go hiking. Maybe you think that you have the right to have your car not skid out of control when driving 100 mph in a rainstorm. Is that what you think?

Are you for real?  I suggest that someone has a right to not get raped, and you come back with "you think you have the right to not have your car skid?"...right after accusing me of strawmanning and "[someone] talk[ing] about one thing, you talk about another and pretend that is what he was talking about."  Is this some kind of trolling thing?  Where you accuse me of something and then do the exact thing you're accusing to allegedly make your point?

 

Primetime:

The bold is just not what Clayton was saying.

Um. Duh.  Hence the use of the word "it"...a pronoun used to represent an inanimate thing previously mentioned...in this case the "poster meme".  I never said that's what Clayton was saying.  Obviously he wasn't saying that.  That's the whole point.  The poster said one thing, and Clayton claims it said something else.

 

Primetime:

Are you for real?  I suggest that someone has a right to not get raped, and you come back with "you think you have the right to not have your car skid?"...right after accusing me of strawmanning and "[someone] talk[ing] about one thing, you talk about another and pretend that is what he was talking about."  Is this some kind of trolling thing?  Where you accuse me of something and then do the exact thing you're accusing to allegedly make your point?

Where did Clayton ever say that someone does not have a right to not get raped? He was not addressing rights. Stop making it about rights. He was addressing prudent actions versus foolish actions in a dangerous world.

EDIT: Furthermore, I notice that you delibrately decided to not quote my paragraph:

gotlucky:

All Clayton is saying is that given certain circumstances, certain actions are foolish. He is not making any claims about the morality of the victim or the criminal.

Interesting that you would delibrately misrepresent my point in order to call me a troll.

Just stop.

Primetime:

Um. Duh.  Hence the use of the word "it"...a pronoun used to represent an inanimate thing previously mentioned...in this case the "poster meme".  I never said that's what Clayton was saying.  Obviously he wasn't saying that.  That's the whole point.  The poster said one thing, and Clayton claims it said something else.

Don't be a dumbass. Your entire post can be summed up by your last paragraph, which you chose to not address in my post:

Primetime:

If we lived in a town where you couldn't go outside your house without being attacked, and someone said "it's ridiculous that someone should be expected to simply never go outside if they don't want to get attacked"...it seems like the response from people here would be: "How idiotic.  You want to claim that going outside doesn't affect the likelihood of you getting attacked?  It's simple, if you don't want to be assaulted, stay inside.  It's perfectly logical.  You're braindead if you think there's something wrong with that.

Your entire post leads up to this. You start off by saying you agree with Mika's response to Clayton, and that post too was a straw man of Clayton's point. You follow up with a lot of muddled writing...perhaps English is not your first language and that is the problem with your communication. But you definitely finished your post with that bullshit straw man above. No one here is blaming the victim, period. The only thing that some posters here are claiming is that some people (in this case some women) need to be more prudent. Notice that I am not saying more prude, which was Mika's nice little straw man above.

 

I just don't understand this mentality.  

What "mentality" - I read your post and I cannot see what "mentality" it is that you are claiming I have.

If Bert were to point out how the war on drugs normalizes agression in the inner-city by making dispute resolution over drug money and property illegal, you would recognize this as an insightful analysis.  You probably wouldn't feel compelled to say "yeah, but you shouldn't be walking around North Avenue at night."  I mean, its obvious that such an analysis doesn't equal a "braindead bourgeois mentality that I can walk wherever I want, whenever I want, however I want."

 

a) I would, indeed, say you shouldn't be walking around North Avenue at night... the cops are very dangerous and you should avoid situations - even traffic stops! - that involve interaction of any kind with the police. Do you not read Grigg?

b) The difference between the State and the masses is that the former is a telic entity and the latter are not. The masses are a dispersed interest and their behavior is the result of an incomprehensibly complex mixture of genetics, culture and individual circumstance and choice. It makes no sense to say "this entity should have better ends" if it has no ends at all! In the case of the State, we can point to the particular ends it has and we can criticize their deficiency and provide moral suggestions for change. But the masses are a brute fact of nature, like the ocean. There's no sense in saying "the ocean should stop sending these evil hurricanes"... hurricanes are a brute fact of nature because there is no telic entity to which we can appeal to change its mind or alter its behavior.

Yet, if Bert or any other libertarian feminist points out how slut shaming normalizes and perpetuates rape culture, the common response seems to be along these lines; "dont wanna get raped?  Dress like an Amish bag lady and stay in the kitchen." (I exagerate, of course, but the idea is the same).

Along with Woods, I'm not acquainted with terminology like "slut shaming" or even "rape culture."

As I stated already, neither "slut-shaming" nor its opposition has anything to do with libertarianism qua libertarianism because neither involves aggression. This is not to say there isn't a moral argument to be made one way or the other, of course. Libertarianism is hardly the sum of moral philosophy (contrary to the belief of many libertarians).

But as I already pointed out, just because "libertarian feminists" have devised an argument against the traditional idea that female modesty is commendable on the basis of pointing out how it might slightly and occasionally inconvenience those women who choose to live a Sex and the City lifestyle doesn't mean the matter is settled. I don't believe the proponents of libertarian feminism have actually addressed the substance of conservative ideas regarding femininity (which, to reiterate, have nothing to do with libertarianism, per se).

Clayton -

Looks like the masks are coming off... sheesh.

That's how I saw it.  The poster above is accurate.  It makes no difference if you are statistically safer from being aggressed upon in one area versus another, or you decrease your odds of being violated by abiding by a certain dress code.  The whole point is that by alleging "she shouldn't have been wearing that" the victim is being saddled with blame, when they did absolutely nothing wrong.

In what context?? You guys keep making these sweeping statements about "blaming the victim" yet you are not specifying the context in which you are claiming this to be the case. Is the self-defense instructor who says to his students, "You are responsible for your own safety, it's up to you to keep you safe because no one else can and no one else cares" blaming them in the event they get mugged???

A judge who says "you shouldn't have dressed that way... it's not his fault" is rendering an unjust judgment. But who here has even hinted that such pronouncements are acceptable??

And why is this discussion being prosecuted at such a lobotomized level?

The poster says nothing about how "wise" it is to walk around flashing your boobs or your Rolex in a dodgy area.  Nor does it "claim that it should not be said that how you dress, act and where you go affects the likelihood you could be the victim of a crime".  It says to suggest that victims should prevent crimes by maintaining a certain dress code, inherently says that men are not in control of their own actions, and are essentially Pavlov's dog.

The masses - people generally - are a force of nature. To suggest that victims maintain a certain dress code at certain times of night, avoid certain areas, not flash valuables or body parts, etc. is no statement about "men", it is a statement about the human condition, human nature. People take what they can get. Closing your eyes, stopping your ears and saying "la la la la la" doesn't change anything in this regard. Nor can such posters... shouldn't we all be drug-free now after all those Just Say No posters?

Jargon does make a good point that some men are dogs, but that still doesn't follow that somehow it is the victim's fault when she becomes victimized, and that the solution to such problems is that she should follow a certain code of conduct at all times, so as not to be aggressed upon.

It's up to the individual woman to choose how much risk she is willing to take. This is libertarian 101, I don't even understand how this can be a point of contention.

Clayton -

 

This issue I have with bringing up risk taking, as Clayton has, is that it completely sidesteps the actual debate, that is, whether or not slut shaming reinforces and perpetuates rape culture.

In the post you took issue with, I said nothing about "slut shaming" or "rape culture."

Let's go over it again. The poster's thesis is "Men should be OFFENDED when someone claims that women should prevent rape." It goes on to give a bizarre and, to me, unintelligible argumen based on how I will be perceived "as a man" should this view continue to be widespread.

Now, my counter to this poster was to translate it from the emotive and politicized context of rape into the context of a less spectacular crime: mugging. For example, imagine a poster that states: "Poor people should be OFFENDED when someone claims that the rich should prevent mugging." But this is moronic. If you are wealthy and you own a gold-watch, yes, the onus is on you to keep the watch covered when walking through a part of town where you might get mugged... or better yet, to not even be in that part of town to begin with. The onus is on you not to let someone into your house and see your valuables who might be a robber or thief. The onus is on you, as GL has pointed out, as a matter of prudence, not culpability. Obviously, the mugger is culpable for his actions, not the mugging victim. But the poster isn't talking about culpability, it's talking about prevention, which is a question of security (thus, prudence).

From this response, PrimeTime and mikachussetts have managed to reduce the thread to a lobotomized circus of strawmen, red herrings, politicized feminist catchphrases and other gibberish. No wonder they're shutting this PoS forum down...

Clayton -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWttwMEs8l0

+1 Clayton

Clayton:

If you are wealthy and you own a gold-watch, yes, the onus is on you to keep the watch covered when walking through a part of town where you might get mugged

The sooner you people realize that a hoodlum jumping from the bushes and raping the careless maiden isn't the problem with rape culture, the better we will all be off.

By clinging to this comforting stereotype, you're purposefully ignoring that most cases of rape occur in supposedly safe spaces:

Rape often occurs in one's home - be it apartment, house or dormitory. Very often the rapist is known by the victim in some way and the rape is carefully planned.

By perpetuating this stereotype, which also happens to take hold of LEOs and the judicial system, you're creating an environment in which a tragic amount of rape victims feel uncomfortable speaking out because people have a completely warped imagination of rape. "You sure you were raped by your boyfriend? You sure it wasn't consensual?" Since everyone knows rapes are committed by lowlife criminals in back alleys, right?

Your gold watch example also displays a blatant ignorance of the heated debate around sexual consent that has been going on for some time now. Everyone can see that stealing your watch is bad, but what about pressuring a spouse into sexual acts? Taking advantage of drunk people? Accepting no answer as an affirmative answer? These are the actual questions concerning the rape debate, not your white middle class fantasies about otherized criminals preying on girls in slutty dresses.

The sooner you people realize that a hoodlum jumping from the bushes and raping the careless maiden isn't the problem with rape culture, the better we will all be off.

What, the problem is that not enough men are offended when someone suggests that a woman take some steps to make herself more secure? what is the problem?

Rape often occurs in one's home - be it apartment, house or dormitory. Very often the rapist is known by the victim in some way and the rape is carefully planned.

the rapist knows the victim? You mean like the rapist knows that the potential victim has nice tits and poor personal security (persec) habits? Is the problem that enough men arent offended by rapes that occur inside the victim's home? Or is it possibly prudent to maintain good persec even while inside one's home or domicile? do you mean that the rapist might plan to victimize someone who is more vulnerable? Is the problem that not enough women are flirting with potential rapists and leaing their doors unlocked, so that I need to be offended whenever discretion is offered as part of a preventative program?

By perpetuating this stereotype, which also happens to take hold of LEOs and the judicial system, you're creating an environment in which a tragic amount of rape victims feel uncomfortable speaking out because people have a completely warped imagination of rape. "You sure you were raped by your boyfriend? You sure it wasn't consensual?" Since everyone knows rapes are committed by lowlife criminals in back alleys, right?

thats like the incredible hulk of strawmen. "your lack of taking offense at shit I dont like has erased the idea of acquaintance rape from the minds of leos, judges, and social workers all over the political jurisdictions that you inhabit!"

Your gold watch example also displays a blatant ignorance of the heated debate around sexual consent that has been going on for some time now. Everyone can see that stealing your watch is bad, but what about pressuring a spouse into sexual acts? Taking advantage of drunk people? Accepting no answer as an affirmative answer? These are the actual questions concerning the rape debate, not your white middle class fantasies about otherized criminals preying on girls in slutty dresses.

whats your advice to the woman whose husband pressures her for sex acts she doesnt want to perform? Tell her to purse her lips and shake her ass while she rejects her husband? Am I supposed to be offended when someone explains that getting drunk at a party around people you dont (or shouldnt) trust entails a degree of risk? People shouldnt be risk averse to any degree, they should outlaw the risk of tragic occurrences.

you guys are really into this rape-enabling program, wow.

Thanks Sphairon.  I've been reluctant to post, because it's getting frustrating.

Let's go over it again. The poster's thesis is "Men should be OFFENDED when someone claims that women should prevent rape." It goes on to give a bizarre and, to me, unintelligible argumen based on how I will be perceived "as a man" should this view continue to be widespread.

Since I seemed to have started this thread, my thesis is actually along the lines of: Men should combat rape culture in all cases; culturally, emotionally, physically, psychologically, and judicially.  It should not simply rest on the woman to defend herself from rape, because "it happens" or merely "rapists exist," but should confront the problem head on, to go beyond telling a woman how to live in fear because of rapists, but instead confront a culture that breeds rape culture and  elements and language of sexism as being okay or tolerable.  If you only tell women to defend themselves, but do not teach people the way they view and objectify women in a way that's demeaning, rape will happen.

Now, my counter to this poster was to translate it from the emotive and politicized context of rape into the context of a less spectacular crime: mugging. For example, imagine a poster that states: "Poor people should be OFFENDED when someone claims that the rich should prevent mugging." But this is moronic. If you are wealthy and you own a gold-watch, yes, the onus is on you to keep the watch covered when walking through a part of town where you might get mugged... or better yet, to not even be in that part of town to begin with. The onus is on you not to let someone into your house and see your valuables who might be a robber or thief. The onus is on you, as GL has pointed out, as a matter of prudence, not culpability. Obviously, the mugger is culpable for his actions, not the mugging victim. But the poster isn't talking about culpability, it's talking about prevention, which is a question of security (thus, prudence).

Strawman.  Let's find all my friends - or better yet everyone, whether female or male, who have been sexually assualted, and tell them it was a bad decision on their part, because they happened to be in a safe environment, with people they knew, and were not wearing "loose" clothing.  The precautions they took were not enough.  They were raped, it falls on them, right?

Saw this image the other day, and I felt it fits into the idea of how one dresses and how irrelevant it can really be.  What standards do people hold?  What preconcieved sexist notions do people hold?

Clayton:

"Poor people should be OFFENDED when someone claims that the rich should prevent mugging." But this is moronic. If you are wealthy and you own a gold-watch, yes, the onus is on you to keep the watch covered when walking through a part of town where you might get mugged... or better yet, to not even be in that part of town to begin with. The onus is on you not to let someone into your house and see your valuables who might be a robber or thief. The onus is on you, as GL has pointed out, as a matter of prudence, not culpability. Obviously, the mugger is culpable for his actions, not the mugging victim. But the poster isn't talking about culpability, it's talking about prevention, which is a question of security (thus, prudence).

I think you're going about this the wrong way.  Your analogous statement is moronic, but for reasons opposite of what you're using it to illustrate.  Poor people get mugged all the time.  Implying that only the rich should prevent mugging is classist(?).  Yes, yes, I forsee you or someone else coming back and switching the terms back to women and men and rape and claiming "sexist", but the fact remains rape is by far a men-on-women crime, even if you account for guesstimation of rapes in which men are the victims which then go unreported because the men are too ashamed or embarassed to report them.  (And even then, it's almost never a female offender.)

That being said, your whole point I think would be much better made if you posed it this way:

Do you believe that 100% of all rapes could ever be prevented?  i.e., is it feasible for a single rape to never occur?  Or is it more likely that no matter what laws, security measures, societal norms, treatment programs, psychotropic drugs, are administered and managed and maintained, the crime of rape will still occur to some degree above zero?  If the answer is yes, that Nirvana is not attainable on Earth, then one must admit that rape (and all other forms of aggression) are a natural danger in our world...and one that must be curbed and minimized in the same way all other dangers are.

There are risks of all kinds, everywhere...which make living quite hazardous to one's health.  Precautions are constantly taken—literally every second of every day—to hedge one's risk of injury, illness, death, and every other possible occurance that people wish to avoid.  Murder is no less unethical, and no less illegal than rape...yet you find people saying and doing things to prevent, or not saying and doing things they think might entice someone else (who is likely to act) to murder them.  In other words, if someone cuts you off in traffic, and you see the car is filled with people who look like this, you're much less likely to get out and start screaming profanities at them than if they looked like this.  Or this.  Why?  You're perfectly within your rights to do so, no matter who cut you off.  You should be able speak profanities at whomever you want without having to fear getting murdered.  Why do you feel it is necessary to restrain your behavior with one group of bad drivers versus another? 

...Because, like in any other life situation, after economizing on information costs you come to the determination that your risk in doing so with one group is much higher than with another...regardless of the fact that it's still just as illegal to murder you whether you're in Beverly Hills or Compton.  In this context, rape is no different than any other danger one must be mindful of.

Granted, because rape is a fully human-sourced danger (as opposed to, say, a hurricane), it is feasible to contend that the threat could be minimized from the threat end—that is, it is conceivable to have a population with fewer people willing to rape—meaning the risk of rape could actually be lowered without any pro-active measure taken on the part of a would-be victim (unlike a hurricane.)  But just because this possibility exists, it does not follow that therefore the would-be victim is free from any responsibility for minimizing the risk from their end. 

Just as you are not the cause of the actual damage inflicted to yourself or other property by a storm, you may not be culpable for an assualt you experience...but assessing the risk of the very real danger that exists and preparing and protecting yourself accordingly is within your control and is your responsibility.

 

By the same token, the poster should probably say something like:

It should be offensive to anyone when someone claims that someone who was raped "was asking for it", "got what was coming to them", "got what they deserved", because of something they wore or said.  That line of thinking presumes that rape is an appropriate and just response to nothing more than words and clothing.

 

I will also say that I have heard of cases in which the victim has effectively been blamed for the aggression they experienced, and in which the aggressor was at least let off the hook, if not made out to be the victim.  Indeed, the article linked in the OP of this thread mentions several:

Women who are deemed “sluts” are treated as no longer credible witnesses, because if they want sex or have lots of it, it is apparently inconceivable that they might ever not consent to it.  This form of slut shaming was seen in a 2010 gang rape case that was dismissed when it was revealed that the victim had fantasized about group sex. The judge said of the victim, “her credibility was shot to pieces.”  In a 2008 sexual battery case in Georgia, the judge made the victim reveal a litany of intimate details about her sex and dating history. This was used to slut shame and humiliate the victim.

Slut shaming is even wielded against the youngest rape victims. When the New York Times covered of a case in which an 11 year old was gang raped, the paper of record saw fit to focus on the girl’s makeup and clothing. Later in the same case, defense attorney Steve Taylor blamed this 11 year old girl for being gang raped, comparing her to a spider luring men into her web.

 

P.S.

Mugging is real, and it is soooo spectacular.

 

Men should combat rape culture in all cases; culturally, emotionally, physically, psychologically, and judicially.  It should not simply rest on the woman to defend herself from rape, because "it happens" or merely "rapists exist," but should confront the problem head on, to go beyond telling a woman how to live in fear because of rapists, but instead confront a culture that breeds rape culture and  elements and language of sexism as being okay or tolerable.  If you only tell women to defend themselves, but do not teach people the way they view and objectify women in a way that's demeaning, rape will happen.

Wow. Just, wow.

"Men should combat rape culture in all cases; culturally, emotionally, physically, psychologically, and judicially." ok, youre moralizing, but I can agree with this. I oppose any criminal culture, especially "rape culture" as I define it. Next,

"It should not simply rest on the woman to defend herself from rape" guess what, it does. Thats just a fact, unless you employ special pleading or deny that women are individuals who make their own choices and have to deal with the specter of violence as individuals.

"but should confront the problem head on" well one problem is a vulnerability in personal security. Not sure how pretending that doesnt exist is confronting it head on.

"but instead confront a culture that breeds rape culture and  elements and language of sexism as being okay or tolerable." what about a culture that rejects agency and substitutes classic leftisms like "being offended"? What about a culture that insists that women cannot or should not take responsibility for their own security? Let me guess, these women are supposed to rely on the nobility of the masculine gender to protect them from rape. And we need to bitch at men until they become noble.

"If you only tell women to defend themselves, but do not teach people the way they view and objectify women in a way that's demeaning, rape will happen." yah, crime is a fact. Its also gonna happen even if you pretend that men can make it disappear by treating women like human beings. However I hope we can agree that rape will happen a lot less often to women who make good persec decisions, and a lot more often to women who make poor persec decisions.

Let's find all my friends - or better yet everyone, whether female or male, who have been sexually assualted, and tell them it was a bad decision on their part, because they happened to be in a safe environment, with people they knew, and were not wearing "loose" clothing.  The precautions they took were not enough.  They were raped, it falls on them, right?

wtf are you talking about? This para is full of straw. The rapist is liable for the rape. Is that clear enough for you? Now can we stop assuming that "a place where someone gets raped" is a "safe environment" because it obviously isnt.

Women who are deemed “sluts” are treated as no longer credible witnesses, because if they want sex or have lots of it, it is apparently inconceivable that they might ever not consent to it.  This form of slut shaming was seen in a 2010 gang rape case that was dismissed when it was revealed that the victim had fantasized about group sex. The judge said of the victim, “her credibility was shot to pieces.”  In a 2008 sexual battery case in Georgia, the judge made the victim reveal a litany of intimate details about her sex and dating history. This was used to slut shame and humiliate the victim.

Slut shaming is even wielded against the youngest rape victims. When the New York Times covered of a case in which an 11 year old was gang raped, the paper of record saw fit to focus on the girl’s makeup and clothing. Later in the same case, defense attorney Steve Taylor blamed this 11 year old girl for being gang raped, comparing her to a spider luring men into her web.

this kind of stuff is horrible, and every woman should understand that her security is her own responsibility because of all the sick and twisted people out there, she may not be able to trust anyone, least of all the courts.

It should be offensive to anyone when someone claims that someone who was raped "was asking for it", "got what was coming to them", "got what they deserved", because of something they wore or said.  That line of thinking presumes that rape is an appropriate and just response to nothing more than words and clothing.

yes, I can agree with this.

Malachi:

What, the problem is that not enough men are offended when someone suggests that a woman take some steps to make herself more secure?

How do you secure yourself against a supposed friend or relative sexually encroaching on you? Not everyone has the mental fortitude to resist this right at the scene, and it doesn't help that this often happens to minors.

Malachi:

"your lack of taking offense at shit I dont like has erased the idea of acquaintance rape from the minds of leos, judges, and social workers all over the political jurisdictions that you inhabit!"

I never wanted to be one of those people, but here goes: check your privilege.

Seriously. Do you have any idea about the subtle inquisition someone is put through when they present themselves as a rape victim without obvious physical damages to show for it? When the rape kit's useless because the victim was traumatized for too long to do anything, the raised eyebrows and questioning looks can be absolutely painful.

Malachi:

whats your advice to the woman whose husband pressures her for sex acts she doesnt want to perform?

What, it's the woman who needs advice? Not the asshole rapist husband? You're making the feminists' case without realizing it.

How do you secure yourself against a supposed friend or relative sexually encroaching on you? Not everyone has the mental fortitude to resist this right at the scene, and it doesn't help that this often happens to minors.

mental preparation, and familiarity with weapons, including psychological weapons and improvised weapons. perhaps the reason they are being taken advantage of is precisely the lack of mental fortitude you mention. Of course the actual mental state of the potential victim is of little concern to your anti-rape crusader. In actual fact, victims are often victimized because they are vulnerable.

I never wanted to be one of those people, but here goes: check your privilege.

well now one of us is the kind of person he never wanted to be. Have fun looking in the mirror.

Seriously. Do you have any idea about the subtle inquisition someone is put through when they present themselves as a rape victim without obvious physical damages to show for it? When the rape kit's useless because the victim was traumatized for too long to do anything, the raised eyebrows and questioning looks can be absolutely painful.

let me guess, this is my fault, because I wasnt offended enough by other people's sexist behavior. Its not the fault of the people who pretend that responsibility for rape prevention belongs to the male sex, collectively, and so didnt try to teach that someone about things they might want to do, like report the crime immediately, or carry a weapon, or fight the bastard hoping he will go away or at least leave some evidence of force. Those are all irrelevancies to be brushed away and ignored. Why? Because we are chivalrous. Women shouldnt have to worry about rape, so women actually shouldnt worry about rape! The rapists are men, so men need to change!

What, it's the woman who needs advice? Not the asshole rapist husband?

are you seriously suggesting that a woman who is married to a rapist doesnt need any advice or counseling? Please answer.

You're making the feminists' case without realizing it.

since I happen to be a feminist, I happen to be fully aware whose case I am making. In case you didnt notice, I am arguing for the empowerment of women while you seem to believe that they are inherently powerless over even the most critical aspects of their lives.

Malachi, maybe we'll have better luck with these people if we resort to pretty pictures. Okay, guys, can you tell the difference between the following two pictures?

 and 

Now, yes, anyone who breaks into and steals from a store is culpable. The store owner who is the victim of a burglary is not culpable. However, depending upon the location and culture of the community, sometimes it's more prudent to have a storefront that is like one of the above pictures. I'm going to leave it to the reader to figure out which one.

Follow up question: Do you have a lock on your door? Why or why not?

And one more thing:

Do you have any idea about the subtle inquisition someone is put through when they present themselves as a rape victim without obvious physical damages to show for it? When the rape kit's useless because the victim was traumatized for too long to do anything, the raised eyebrows and questioning looks can be absolutely painful.

Dont forget about the responsibility of the leo's to get accurate information. Or is rape a special kind of crime where the accused have no rights?

Malachi:

In actual fact, victims are often victimized because they are vulnerable.

And poor people don't get ahead because they just can't keep their money together.

I mean, really, is it too much to ask of everyone to have a Marine-style mindset up at all times, particularly around people they are supposed to be able to trust? Better to train people to be paranoid wrecks than to try to do something about sexual objectification, right?
 

Malachi:

let me guess, this is my fault, because I wasnt offended enough by other people's sexist behavior.

Yes, waving away the effects of centuries of female oppression and the rape culture that resulted certainly contributes. And you're doing a fantastic job at it.

Malachi:

are you seriously suggesting that a woman who is married to a rapist doesnt need any advice or counseling?

She probably needs it after the fact. But the person who would be in greater need of educational attention is definitely the husband.

Your reaction tells me that you still can't let go of the stereotyptical image of the dark-alley-sitting creepy rapist. Rape isn't just physically forcing sex on someone. Rape occurs in a lot of subtle ways.

Your implication is that the hypothetical woman in question needs "advice" to avoid dating "bad types" who will rape her in the future. If only she hadn't gone for the bad boy, this wouldn't have happened, right? Because morally superior middle class guys such as yourself don't rape, right? Since rape only occurs in "those neighborhoods" in conjunction with "those people"?

Malachi:

since I happen to be a feminist

You happen to be a guy who, if appearances are any indication, has successfully avoided reading up on anything modern feminist theory has produced and who thinks patriarchy and its concomitant sexist view of women and sexuality will go away if we teach them to carry guns.

And poor people don't get ahead because they just can't keep their money together.

no its because capitalists arent offended enough by poverty. They should think about how much they hate it more often and more intensely, then we wouldnt have poor people, right?

I mean, really, is it too much to ask of everyone to have a Marine-style mindset up at all times, particularly around people they are supposed to be able to trust?

I dont know dude, is a little acquaintaince rape every now-and-again too much to ask someone to put up with? I mean, its got to be less traumatic than carrying a knife everywhere you go, right?

and there you go again, implying that women "should be able to trust" rapists, if only men werent such pigs.

Better to train people to be paranoid wrecks than to try to do something about sexual objectification, right?

its better to do something about the possibility of rape than try to change a rapist's mind about how he likes his pussy. Also quit trying to say that people who take responsibility for their persec are "paranoid." Paranoia is a lot more likely to result from getting raped by an acquaintance you trust than taking measures to protect yourself from acquaintance rape.

Yes, waving away the effects of centuries of female oppression and the rape culture that resulted certainly contributes. And you're doing a fantastic job at it.

how, exactly, am I doing that?

She probably needs it after the fact.

so marrying a rapist was a good decision, in your opinion. Awesome judgment call, just awesome. "No dude, hazard lights are for after the accident. Just stop in the middle of the street on a foggy day and wait to get hit. Then, turn on your hazard lights."

But the person who would be in greater need of educational attention is definitely the husband.

I didnt realize that you thought that this was some kind of dichotomy. Well heres something for you, a pistol in the face and divorce papers served in the next few days might be a little more educational than the sound of a woman crying after she has been violated, dont you think?

Your reaction tells me that you still can't let go of the stereotyptical image of the dark-alley-sitting creepy rapist. Rape isn't just physically forcing sex on someone. Rape occurs in a lot of subtle ways.

Here we go, lol. Tell me about how a woman can be raped subtly. Tell me about how women are too emotionally stunted to identify warning signs. Tell me about how women are too stupid to identify a rapist that isnt a creep in a dark ally. I'm dying to hear about how a woman who is married to a rapist didnt need advice beforehand because he was a subtle rapist who could only be reformed through the power of posters and other men giving a fuck. Because rapists usually tend to care about other people's wants.

Your implication is that the hypothetical woman in question needs "advice" to avoid dating "bad types" who will rape her in the future.

a more faithful reading of my post would suggest that I think this hypothetical woman needs advice on identifying men who might be prone to acquaintaince rape. But thats so obviously true it would be hard to formulate a snarky response, so you had to use scare quotes and pretend I was talking about "bad boys" when I actually mean what I said, rapists.

If only she hadn't gone for the bad boy, this wouldn't have happened, right? Because morally superior middle class guys such as yourself don't rape, right? Since rape only occurs in "those neighborhood" in conjunction with "those people"?

right now I want you to realize that your arguments are so weak you have resorted to inventing strawmen to knock down. Literally nothing in my posts would suggest any of that.

You happen to be a guy who, if appearances are any indication, has successfully avoided reading up on anything modern feminist theory has produced and who thinks patriarchy and its concomitant sexist view of women and sexuality will go away if we teach them to carry guns.

Judging by appearances on the internet. In a thread where your argument seems to consist of "rapists cant be identified by appearance they can only be brainwashed by inane ramblings about patriarchy. This discussion is sickening. The worst part is that you seem to want to pretend that guns will be ineffective...at changing rape culture...when the point is that a woman who is aware and armed is better able to prevent her own rape, and that empowered women have their own effect on culture. youre the worst kind of chauvinist, you want women to rely on the nobility of men rather than be empowered with regard to their own security.

"The sooner you people realize that a hoodlum jumping from the bushes and raping the careless maiden isn't the problem with rape culture, the better we will all be off."

 

Please cite where I said or even implied this.

"By clinging to this comforting stereotype, you're purposefully ignoring that most cases of rape occur in supposedly safe spaces:"

As I pointed out already - if you got raped there, it wasn't safe, now, was it?

"Rape often occurs in one's home - be it apartment, house or dormitory. Very often the rapist is known by the victim in some way and the rape is carefully planned."

 

And roses grow on bushes and the sky is blue. Please wake me up when you have something to add to the conversation.

"By perpetuating this stereotype, which also happens to take hold of LEOs and the judicial system,"

Yes, because I'm a big defender of LEO's and the judicial system....

"you're creating an environment in which a tragic amount of rape victims feel uncomfortable speaking out because people have a completely warped imagination of rape."

But "speaking out" is not the solution to rape, either. A rape victim speaking out was still raped...

"You sure you were raped by your boyfriend? You sure it wasn't consensual?" Since everyone knows rapes are committed by lowlife criminals in back alleys, right?

Well, domestic rape is a highly politicized area of law and is completely FUBAR'd. The judges who want to go the "old-fashioned" route make the insane claim that rape is impossible in the domestic situation. But that's mostly in the deep-south territory where you see that kind of thing. Most judges nowadays are on the feminist bandwagon where "He said, she said" means "she said, therefore, he did" - an obviously problematic legal theory. Let me pose to you a simple legal question to illustrate why. Let's say I'm on the subway and I pat a woman on the butt. Is that sexual assault? Of course it is. Now, let's say my girlfriend just found out I had been cheating on her and, naturally, the relationship is over for her. We haven't talked yet and, before she noticed I was home, I had come up from behind and patted her on the butt. Is this, or is it not sexual assault? This is a yes or no situation, either it is, or it isn't sexual assault.

If you say yes (which I can't imagine how you can say "no" if you are sympathetic to feminist legal theories), then what if she just "wasn't in the mood to be patted on the butt"? Is it sexual assault only if she informs me prior? Or is no notice required? If there is notice required, then doesn't this presumption apply to sex, as well? And what if she had seemed merely coy to her partner. "No, I'm not in the mood" can often be changed to hot, steamy sex after a bit of foreplay. Are we to understand that the feminists would have it that women are no longer to be wooed when they are merely being coy? But let us suppose that boyfriends/husbands are allowed to woo their wife/girlfriend when she says no because she is being coy. If she later regrets having given in to sex after being coy, then by the "no means no" standard, he has raped her, no? Yet from his point-of-view, he has done nothing different than he has done every other time they have made out when she was being coy and she ended up getting into the mood.

Your gold watch example also displays a blatant ignorance of the heated debate around sexual consent that has been going on for some time now. Everyone can see that stealing your watch is bad, but what about pressuring a spouse into sexual acts?

Define "pressuring"... is persisting in asking "pressuring"? Is initiating physical intimacy (not sex) "pressuring"? What, exactly, is "pressuring"??

Taking advantage of drunk people? Accepting no answer as an affirmative answer? These are the actual questions concerning the rape debate, not your white middle class fantasies about otherized criminals preying on girls in slutty dresses.

What "rape debate"?? If someone didn't consent to the act, it is rape. Debate over! But proving non-consent is a far more difficult problem in 99% of cases than defining precisely what does or does not constitute consent. So, you feminists are focusing on the wrong problem.

Clayton -

Since I seemed to have started this thread, my thesis is

I wasn't answer your thesis, I was answering the thesis of the poster.

actually along the lines of: Men should combat rape culture in all cases; culturally, emotionally, physically, psychologically, and judicially.  

a) Whoever suggested otherwise (in the libertarian camp)?

b) Why the hell would any man not, automatically, oppose rape (or "rape culture"). Particularly young, non-gang-affiliated males who are at the highest risk of being rape victims in the event they are charged with a crime, which could be something as trivial as possession of marijuana? Statistically, most prison-rapes occur in the county jail and the victims are not "hard-time" criminals, they are hapless minor offenders.

Rape was never a "women's issue" to begin with.

It should not simply rest on the woman to defend herself from rape, because "it happens" or merely "rapists exist," but should confront the problem head on, to go beyond telling a woman how to live in fear because of rapists, but instead confront a culture that breeds rape culture and  elements and language of sexism as being okay or tolerable.  If you only tell women to defend themselves, but do not teach people the way they view and objectify women in a way that's demeaning, rape will happen.

I haven't even touched on the causes of rape up to this point. But you are assuming that the cause of rape is not something deep-seated (i.e. genetic) and that is what boggles my mind. You're never going to "convince" someone that they shouldn't commit a rape. If the opportunity arises, and they are the sort of individual who will engage in that kind of behavior, it's going to happen. For women (who are the primary victim demographic), my advice is that they should avoid walking/running alone at night (a well-trained dog is a suitable self-defense measure, in combination with some other self-defense capacity), they should avoid any situation where they can be "cornered", and if they don't know what sort of situation they might be in (e.g. traveling alone), they should dress/behave defensively to minimize their risks.

 

Strawman.  Let's find all my friends - or better yet everyone, whether female or male, who have been sexually assualted, and tell them it was a bad decision on their part, because they happened to be in a safe environment, with people they knew, and were not wearing "loose" clothing.  The precautions they took were not enough.  They were raped, it falls on them, right?

WTF, Bert, I thought you were one of the good guys. Why are you are you playing bait and switch?? The poster specifically uses the word "prevent". Crime prevention is a security concern. And, yes, security extends even into your home and your personal life. This is why you should not make dangerous friends or be friends with people who seem like the type that might come and steal your valuables. But the moment I point that out as a matter of prudence, you switch to discussing culpability - this is just downright dishonest; it's the old bait and switch trick.

Let me know if you plan to continue posting on VR. If you are, I'm done, I'm not going to be associated with this trash.

Clayton -

Actually, you know what, fuck it, I have better things to do with my time. You and your ilk can have VR. I don't know why I even signed up on that to begin with.

Clayton -

Totally figures the back and forth would contain itself to by far the least interesting bit about this.

I think we ought to revisit something much more interesting. How the kooks effectively accused Borowski of encouraging rapists and unknowingly or knowingly working to increase the instances of rape.

Borowski goes on to say she doesn't find casual sex empowering. Ergo we are told by BleedingHeartLibertarians she is engaging in what they know as "slut shaming". The implication being she is 'perpetuating rape culture' as we learn from Goodman this clique holds that "slut shaming" causes rape, causes victims of rape not to report it and for rapists to walk free.

So in a nutshell the two reactions of the kook brigade to a sexually promiscuous and sexually non-promiscuous women:

— the promiscuous woman: Since I've come to be more sexualy promiscuous I feel much more confident, powerful and generally happier with myself.
— the Kook brigade: Oh, that's good for you.

— the non-promiscuous woman: I've never tried it, but the way I am, I think if I became promiscuous I would have to think less of myself
— the Kook brigade: Oh, you evil person, you are perpetuating rape culture, making it more likely victims of rape do not come forth and are stigmatized while rape is excused and rapists suffer no consequences!

What is the point of these kooks? Women can be non-promiscuous, but then they should make sure to stay in the closet? They should keep quiet about it, or else they're perpetuating rape culture? I'm sorry but isn't that opressive of women? Shouldn't women feel free to say they aren't into promiscuity? To come out of the closet as non-promiscuous women without having to fear being accused of rooting for rape???

The sooner you people realize that a hoodlum jumping from the bushes and raping the careless maiden isn't the problem with rape culture, the better we will all be off.

By clinging to this comforting stereotype, you're purposefully ignoring that most cases of rape occur in supposedly safe spaces:

Rape often occurs in one's home - be it apartment, house or dormitory. Very often the rapist is known by the victim in some way and the rape is carefully planned.

Much more interesting. I for one know about this. This being the case why is supposed "slut shaming" targeted so zealously? Since in fact virtually all rape has jack shit to do with what the victim is wearing or how promiscuous she is, it would follow "slut shaming" actually does nothing to cause rape. Maybe I would see a connection if every Disco night, it was also Massive Rape night, with provocatively dressed women being raped on every corner, but since it isn't, that seems like conclusive proof critiquing women for dressing provocatively or whatever does not cause them to be raped. It sounds instead there is emotional blackmail going on with trying to shame these "slut shamers" into silence by making them out to be the inspiration for rapists.


Also I would like an explanation for what this "rape culture" is supposed to be. A number of you have invoked it by now, all talking about it very casualy as if you were talking about "maize culture" or something. You want to say this is something mainstream and socially acceptable or what?

Ok. So what actually is "slut shaming" and "rape culture"? I'll try.

All "slut shaming" seems to be is saying that being a promisicious woman is bad and saying so.  I fail to see why this should cause such consternation unless being chaste is somehow morally reprehensible.

"Rape culture" seems to be a pervading view amongst groups of men that rape (unconsenual sex) with women is morally legitimate.

I fail to see how the former encourages the latter. Further I doubt whether in fact a rape culture does in fact exist in most of society.

However most of the issues regarding rape and sexual ethics are a fall out from the disintegration of marriage and the Western Christian civilisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture

 EDIT:  Honestly, its totally absurd that people are openly stating that they have no idea what these terms mean, yet are still willing to say "you're wrong."

This has become sadly amusing, but in a sad manner.  This is why the people of the left-of-center variety don't like libertarians and why other people who focus more on social and cultural issues view libertarians as right wing.

I'm holding off doing a full post touching up on everything.  I'll just let everyone else burn themselves out.

The only amusing/not-amusing thing here is that you've gone full postmodern feminist. You've chucked reason and logic out the window in favor of bait-and-switch rehetoric whose only function is to "appeal to an audience" and "make a point" rather than actually prove anything rationally. Such tactics indicate that truth is not in view... the only thing that matters is "winning the debate" in the eyes of lurkers and the audience.

The poster you linked is standard pomo feminist fare. Rather than appealing to facts and logic, the author has concocted some kind of psycho-emotional jujutsu that is supposed to override the reader's reason and cause him or her to say to themselves, "Gee, wow, yeah, I'm not that kind of person... I had never thought of it that way." When I point this out, your response is to double down with the same bait-and-switch argument... but what's worse is you're not just making a poster that you want to turn into a meme, you're actually trying to prove your point in a debate with me using this poster's non-rational argument.

Clayton -

Re the existence of a rape culture.

It reminds me of a Flight of the Conchords episode in which they tell their manager they should do an anti-aids song to boost their record sales? The manager responds- "But won't that alienate those who are pro-aids."

Replace aids with rape and you'll understand the rape culture, except in small pockets, is non-existent.

You say postmodern feminist like it's a bad thing.

Yes, it is. Hence, parting ways. I dabbled with postmodernism before discovering Mises... that's when I realized that postmodernism is just the disfiguration of philosophy to save statism from its inevitable death at the hands of any rational philosophy. Postmodernism is "words as war"... aka garbage philosophy.

Clayton -

Well when people keep acting like rape culture, patriarchy, and sexism don't exist in contemporary culture I'll keep having "words at war".

Man, how can anyone think feminism isn't alive and well when a simple comment that casual sex isn't empowering can cause so much vagina pain. Unfortunately it's mostly "men" who seem to be the biggest feminists...

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/video/ga-woman-kills-would-be-rapist/

if only more men were offended by the sight of cheerleaders and ring girls, that poor man might be alive today!

I just want to throw more fuel on the rape culture fire: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/01/rape-corrected.html