your cousin Vito ([info]vito_excalibur) wrote,
@ 2005-06-20 22:08:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:saving the world, women & men

glass bull in a china shop
I'm a little late to this rage party, but I thought it was worth showing up anyway. The party started with an 18-year old American girl on a graduation trip to the Caribbean. She left a club with three boys three weeks ago, and has never been seen again. The next step was that Atrios noticed one of the directions in which CNN took this story. But what made people angry was that Steve Gilliard, in response to that, decided that Ms. Holloway has been raped and probably murdered, and posted about who he believes is responsible for this crime: Ms. Holloway for drinking, her parents for not teaching her about sex, Scandinavian women - inexplicably - for sleeping with his friends, and, of course, the media. But not a word about the men who he believes raped and killed her.

So then Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon took up the fight, on her own page and in conjunction with Pseudo-Adrienne at Alas, a Blog; making some excellent points, some of which I will now steal here, in case you don't feel like clicking. One was in response to Gilliard's flight back to the '50s - the 1750s: "Now, I've always been confused as to why a girl would go off with three guys. Was she going to pull a train? Or did she have two spare sex organs for them to use? Because otherwise, that sounds like a really bad decision." Me, the last time I went off with three guys, it was because me and some co-workers went out for lunch. Yes, this involved walking down an empty street with three guys. No, I did not bring enough vaginas for everybody. Because THAT IS NOT MY JOB.

The assumption that it is, that I must not be alone with a man, or men, unless I'm prepared to fuck them all, comes out of the attitude that men are slaves to the dick and cannot be held responsible for their actions: I must be responsible for stopping them. This takes rape out of the category of things like war: things caused by human agency, things that happen because at some point, someone had a choice of possible courses of action, and he made the decision to fuck someone - over. The "men are just like that & nothing can be done to stop it & women must just be careful" reasoning says rape is more like a grizzly attack in Yellowstone. You can't educate the bears. They're going to do what they want to do. It's your responsibility to protect yourself.

People who want to convince us all of this would do well to think about what happens when a grizzly bear attacks someone in Yellowstone - what happens when rangers even think that a grizzly is spending too much time with people and is likely to attack someone. What happens is that rangers find the grizzly and shoot it. There is no due process. There is no reasonable doubt. You cannot educate a grizzly; it's just going to do what it wants to do. So you have to shoot a grizzly that attacks humans, because it's just too dangerous to leave it walking around. Something to keep in mind when you're thinking about whether to embrace the human or the animal paradigm of behavior. An animal cannot be expected to act "unnaturally", to go against its instincts. An animal has no rights.

This is why some people who get all frothy at the mouth about radical feminist statements that men are essentially rapists and not to be trusted are so calm in the face of men's statements that men are essentially rapists and not to be trusted: the good ol' boy take on it is that men are not to be trusted and women should learn to cope, whereas the radical feminist take is that men are not to be trusted and must be controlled to prevent rape. I'm not so into the universals, so my take is that being a man doesn't mean that you know shit about All Men; but when a man tells me that men are not to be trusted, I know that he himself is so deeply not to be trusted that he literally can not conceive of someone of his own gender who is trustworthy. And I keep that in mind.

The other thing pointed out on Pandagon and at Alas is that those guys who push the "never go out alone" theory of female responsibility don't seem to think about how much it makes life suck. Pinko Feminist Hellcat tells us how when she does do the self-protective thing and refuses to stay with male strangers, the reaction is "Jesus, what's her problem?" And it makes life suck for guys too. Guys: would you say your lives are better because you don't have to bring along an elderly female relative every time you want to talk to a woman you're not related to? Would you say your lives are better because sometimes women will be alone with you; because sometimes women will fool around with you even if they're not 100% sure yet whether or not they want to fuck you? The Hellcat saith: "My first date with a previous boyfriend ended with a peck on the cheek at the front door of my building. Some people I knew asked why I didn't invite him in, and I said it was because I didn't know him that well. "Well, you don't want to be paranoid," they said, and they're right, I don't. Problem is, I didn't know if he was an okay guy or if he was just a good actor. If he was just a good actor, people would have asked what the hell I was doing letting him into my house when I barely knew him. If we had a drink or two, it would have gotten worse--what was I thinking? Didn't I know enough to be safe? I'd get both the slut charge and the stupid charge, all in one setting."

Ahh, it sucks so much. I don't live by the "never go out alone" rule because I refuse to impoverish my life that way. But I do things like go up to a hotel room to hang out with a guy I don't know very well, with the full understanding that I may be taking my life in my hands. [info]ratontheroad, did you know that when I was hanging out with you that morning at Kublacon, I was having a good time, and I was also, from time to time, calculating the possibilities of stabbing you in the eye with my keys? You're a big guy. I don't know you very well. You seem nice. That doesn't prove much. I think it improves all of our lives when women as well as men are willing to talk to people they don't already know and make new friends. But the smart thing, the safe thing, would have been for me not to go.

And then Ms. Marcotte, who is a gracious goddess, after working through her rage, moved on to what people can do to stop rape. Seriously - if you click on one link in my LJ ever, click on this link right here. Read her post and the comments. Because most rape doesn't involve somebody disappearing among those crazy furriners, far away from home. It involves people like the guy in the comments who had the courage to tell the story of how a woman once had to tell him "no" more than once and push him away, and how he realizes that he came quite close to being a rapist. It involves not understanding that sex is fucking someone who is fucking you back - and if that's not happening, it's not sex but rape. God, I read this stuff and I want to cry, because I've been 18, I've been stupid, I've been careless with other people. I have behaved as though what I wanted was the only important thing. It is easy. It is tempting. Listen: a friend of mine says the trouble with people who decide they don't like you is that you have to conclude either that they are making a rational decision, in which case you are unlikeable, or that they are making an irrational decision, in which case there's not much reason to respect that decision. And who wants to conclude that they're unlikeable? It's a dangerous, dangerous attitude. I have already lost one friend in part because he was getting so angry that his friends would fuck other people, they would even sometimes fuck each other, these people that he liked, but none of them wanted to fuck him. It looked far too much to me like he was close to concluding that our decision not to fuck him was an irrational decision, that he didn't have much reason to respect.

That's grizzly behavior. I can't be friends with a grizzly. I can only leave him alone or shoot him.

Please be careful. Please think about what you're doing. Please don't leave scars that last for years on the people you like, maybe even the people you love. It's easy to do. We're strong enough to destroy each other and we are so easily broken.



Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]eeyore_grrl
2005-06-21 05:25 am UTC (link)
thank you.


you are more articulate than i, by far on this one. at this point my rational words are eaten by my anger and frustration at this and situations like this. hell, i've been super stupid before, and ended up safely. oddly enough (or not oddly enough) i've been put in more "dangerous" situations by guys i did know better and thought were trust worthy beyond what proved to be truth.

but still. a girl. alone. with a guy. drinking! the nerve, the hussy! (argh)


may i link to this in my journal, most of our friends are likely similar, but i have a few you don't?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]vito_excalibur
2005-06-21 05:26 am UTC (link)
Sure thing! Any public post is okay to link to.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]eeyore_grrl, 2005-06-21 07:26 am UTC (Expand)

[info]laurenhat
2005-06-21 06:03 am UTC (link)
All very good points, and well put.

Another good thing to know about, from a (completely different) practical standpoint, is the bystander effect. The more people are witnessing a rape or murder, the less likely any of the individuals is to respond or try to help. This is due to a mixture of diffused responsibility ("Someone else will take care of it") and a feeling that if something were actually wrong, someone else would be responding. It happens even when the mass of people involved are apartment tenants, as opposed to all standing together in a crowd on the sidewalk. The end result of all this is that there have been several high profile cases (and probably many low profile ones) where lots of people were aware of a rape and/or murder, but nobody did anything about it. Which is pretty tragic.

The good thing is that knowing about the bystander effect tends to counteract it. We should be educating people about this. If people think there is something wrong in an interaction they are witnessing or overhearing, they need to act, even if nobody else is. And if someone is in trouble, the more specific they can be about the fact that they need help, and the more they can assign responsibility to someone in particular (if there is anyone around), the more likely they are to get help.

(Reply to this)


[info]ame_chan
2005-06-21 06:18 am UTC (link)
Thank you. This is really relevant for me right now. I've been wrestling with thoughts along these lines all day. I'm going to link to this and I am also going to share it with my daughter, who is a young woman and needs to understand these things.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]vito_excalibur
2005-06-21 07:12 am UTC (link)
I'm sorry this is of especial relevance to you right now. But I'm really glad if it's helpful.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]angelbob
2005-06-21 07:05 am UTC (link)
I have already lost one friend in part because he was getting so angry that his friends would fuck other people, they would even sometimes fuck each other, these people that he liked, but none of them wanted to fuck him. It looked far too much to me like he was close to concluding that our decision not to fuck him was an irrational decision, that he didn't have much reason to respect.

Yeah. I wish I had a clue what to do in situations like this. It's generally socially assumed that people like this should have the decency to absent themselves from human society - often, but not always, by preemptively shooting themselves - before we have to shoot them.

It makes the 'potential grizzly' position a very bad one to be in if you're not already inclined to shoot yourself.

Shouldn't he, y'know, not be bitter about this when it's obviously their perfectly legitimate decision? It depends whether he'd rather live in a world where he is unworthy of love, or live in a world where he's a dangerous predator and unworthy of being human.

It probably doesn't help that we romanticize the latter, as a culture. I don't think we *could* romanticize the former.

Collectivist societies are probably in better shape here. This is one of those situations where we'd have a better answer if we could say, "yes, things really suck for you, but you should do it for our good, not yours". I consider that to be a horrendously immoral thing to say to anybody, but I also wouldn't do very well in a collectivist society.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)


[info]vito_excalibur
2005-06-21 07:11 am UTC (link)
There is a way out of the dilemma, you know. I hate guacamole: it would be ridiculous to therefore conclude that guacamole is unlikeable. People have unique preferences. Guacamole can learn to live with the fact that some people like it & some people don't.

It DEFINITELY doesn't help that we romanticize the latter.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]angelbob, 2005-06-21 07:22 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vito_excalibur, 2005-06-21 08:01 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]st_rev, 2005-06-21 08:06 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]angelbob, 2005-06-21 08:39 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]st_rev, 2005-06-21 08:45 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vito_excalibur, 2005-06-22 04:28 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]angelbob, 2005-06-22 06:03 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vito_excalibur, 2005-06-23 04:35 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]angelbob, 2005-06-21 08:51 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]hangedwoman, 2005-06-21 06:45 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]angelbob, 2005-06-21 07:06 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]angelbob, 2005-06-21 07:23 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]hangedwoman, 2005-06-21 07:31 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]angelbob, 2005-06-21 07:38 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]hangedwoman, 2005-06-21 07:34 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]angelbob, 2005-06-21 07:43 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]hangedwoman, 2005-06-21 07:54 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ratontheroad, 2005-06-21 07:45 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]angelbob, 2005-06-21 07:59 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]plymouth, 2005-06-24 07:28 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ratontheroad, 2005-06-24 08:10 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vito_excalibur, 2005-06-25 04:37 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]plymouth, 2005-06-24 07:27 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]angelbob, 2005-06-21 07:12 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vito_excalibur, 2005-06-21 07:17 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]angelbob, 2005-06-21 07:25 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vito_excalibur, 2005-06-21 07:33 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-06-22 05:56 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vito_excalibur, 2005-06-22 06:00 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]angelbob, 2005-06-22 06:05 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]plymouth, 2005-06-21 06:51 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vito_excalibur, 2005-06-22 06:01 am UTC (Expand)

[info]caramida
2005-06-21 07:11 am UTC (link)
Wow. Well thought, and well written. Thank you for writing this piece and sharing it. I'd like to say more, but I can't come up with the right words to describe my reaction to this. Simply, I guess I can say again, thank you.

(Reply to this)


[info]tsgeisel
2005-06-21 08:06 am UTC (link)
Thanks for saying this, because in reading it, you made me realize that I *was* falling into the "what was she thinking" trap. And you're right - it's wrong, it's stupid, and it's wrong (so wrong it's worth repeating).

The root of the problem comes not from asking "what was she thinking", it should be all of us asking "Why should we have to ask 'What was she thinking?'"

So, thank you for articulating that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]bumponalog
2005-06-21 10:50 am UTC (link)
How interesting - I always ask "what was the perpetrator thinking?"

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]tsgeisel, 2005-06-21 05:40 pm UTC (Expand)
Shoot the grizzlies.
(Anonymous)
2005-06-21 08:09 am UTC (link)
I can't agree with you more that there is no justification for rape. It's a crime of violence and power and has little or nothing to do with sex at all, except in the mind of the rapist where sexual domination is equated with strength and manhood and sucess and whatever else he lacks.

As a victim of sexual assault, you will never hear me say that anyone deserves it. On a page I frequent where people work to combat online predators, we frequently discuss cases of pedophiles being arrested, and people make remarks like "I hope Bubba has a good time with him in the joint," or "Hope they give him extra time in the shower." I can't laugh at those jokes anymore. I may want the bastards to die, slowly, but that sort of humor only propogates the same idea that sex is a tool of domination.

And as much as women are told that they "asked for it," there is nothing to be said to a male victim, because of the added stigma of homosexuality. "I'd die before I let that happen..." easy words to say.

But there is another issue at play here, and that is the "stupid american tourist" syndrome.
It's really hard to believe this, unless you've seen it in action.
Many years ago I went to a Latin American country in the Carribean with my wife, and another female friend.

This woman was terrified of men. She never spoke to any guy she didn't know if she could help it, much less would ever go off alone with one.

But she was on vacation! And she spoke Spanish, and had the opportunity to use it! And she was part of our little group, she was with us, so she felt safe.

And proceded to talk to anyone. She'd talk to guys on the local bus for hours. She'd talk to guys in bars for hours. She'd talk about personal stuff, she'd give out information about where we were staying or where we were going. She once told three men, perfect strangers, where we were planning to camp.

Why? Because she saw herself as part of a group. What she didn't realize was that the guys she was talking to saw her as the third wheel, obviously available and, based on how much time she spent talking with them, iterested.

We were lucky. The worse that it got was some guy that she had befriended tried to get us to leave our packs with his 'uncle.' This woman who normally was so paranoid about dealing with any men was ready to do it. And she kept ignoring the obvious to the point that i had on a couple of occasion be rudely blunt with whoever she was speaking to. No we're not tleaving stuff

I don't know what happened to the girl in Aruba. Like so many others, I pray that she is found safe.
Going off on your own with three strangers is not asking to be raped. But it is dangerous, and when people, especially 18-year-old kids, are drinking and on vacation the sometimes do stuid things. It doesn't mean that bad things should happen to them, it just means that they're more likely too. And I don't even think the CNN report was trying to blame anyone. I think it is a legitimate newsworthy topic, as is how bloody stupid kids act on spring break in Cancun and Daytona.
Aw well, my three cents, for what it's worth.
Trew.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Shoot the grizzlies.
[info]eeyore_grrl
2005-06-21 08:14 am UTC (link)
by the way... vito, i know this guy, trew... i used to babysit his kids. not a total wacko.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]gldm
2005-06-21 09:23 am UTC (link)
I have already lost one friend in part because he was getting so angry that his friends would fuck other people, they would even sometimes fuck each other, these people that he liked, but none of them wanted to fuck him. It looked far too much to me like he was close to concluding that our decision not to fuck him was an irrational decision, that he didn't have much reason to respect.

I've found the other way this kind of person turns out (assuming they don't snap) is they sink into a heavy depression of being unwanted by anyone. Every message in the media and advertising of how other people are having a great sex life and if you don't something's wrong with you stings every day. Eventually they wind up with no self confidence and if they ever try and come out of it and have consentual sex with someone, they usually get slapped down in some way. Such as the person who consented or even initiated it deciding they don't want the stigma of associating with an undesireable person so they tell everyone they were raped.

I think it's better to leave this kind of person alone like you have, otherwise you just wind up continually hurting and mocking them, even when you don't intend to. It's like trying to hold a snowball barehanded without melting it. Singled-out exclusion is more powerful than people give it credit for.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]vito_excalibur
2005-06-21 02:37 pm UTC (link)
Let me try that again: there was plenty of evidence that it was not that no one wanted him, believe me.

Looking back, I now think about that maybe he didn't see that. Which would be sad.

And, so as not to give the wrong impression, I didn't leave him alone, though in hindsight quite possibly I should have. I can hang on to people I consider friends for a stupidly long time. He stopped hanging out with me for his own reasons.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]angelbob, 2005-06-21 07:04 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]gldm, 2005-06-22 08:51 am UTC (Expand)

[info]crouchback
2005-06-21 09:38 am UTC (link)
I read that link, and was similarly outraged.

I've been struggling with writing something. I don't want to seem like someone who cannot conceive of someone of my gender being trustworthy, but I do think that the odds are unacceptably high that this will be the case. A frighteningly large number of my female friends have either been raped or nearly so.

I don't think that this means that men are inevitably rapists, or that men who do this should get a pass. (The grizzly bear solution sounds reasonable to me, provided that there is cold, hard evidence: DNA, say.)

I do think that prudence suggests that men should be treated as potential rapists until good reason is given to think otherwise. It does irritate me to be thought of that way, but the potential cost is so high, and the odds of it happening are high enough, that I can understand why someone would think that way.

Man, this is difficult to write: I don't want to seem like I'm blaming the victim. Women should be free to go off with whoever they choose, for whatever reason, without having something horrible happen to them.

We don't live in that world. We live in a world where someone will rape two girls and follow-up by raping the neighbor's dog.

I do think my life is much better for me because I can be in the presence of a woman without a female relative, and that women will sometimes fool around with me even if they're not sure what they want to do with me.

I'm also grateful for the trust a woman will put in me by being alone with me, given the odds and potential costs.

I'm rambling.

Bottom line: I think that rapists are responsible for their behavior, not their victims, but I understand why women might choose not to be alone with me (or any other man). I personally would be hurt that I would be thought of as that kind of danger, but I understand the thinking behind it and regard it as logical.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]vito_excalibur
2005-06-21 02:30 pm UTC (link)
Check out [info]harimad's comment. If you really think that men should be treated as potential rapists until good reason is given to think otherwise, should there not be more stringent legal controls on men, like the curfew? Why does "treated like potential rapists" only ever mean that individual women should curtail their own behavior, not that we should get together and do something to prevent the actual criminal behavior?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]crouchback, 2005-06-22 01:27 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vito_excalibur, 2005-06-22 04:47 am UTC (Expand)

[info]crouchback
2005-06-21 09:51 am UTC (link)
Checking your other link, and going on to Myths about rape made me stop and do some thinking.

I did know 1 and 7. In the case of 7, I don't know the stats, but I'm pretty sure the odds of that are low, so I'm not worried about going off with women for that reason.

I do think about when I 'm getting into situations with people, but I worry about being robbed or murdered, simply because it is much more likely to happen to me.

It does not mean that if that happened, I would be responsible for it happening, anymore than it means, if someone totaled my car by crashing into me, I was responsible for it because I had car insurance.

This was, btw, an awesome post. Made me think a lot.

(Reply to this)


[info]melanie
2005-06-21 12:30 pm UTC (link)
this is really excellent.

(Reply to this)


[info]fanw
2005-06-21 02:12 pm UTC (link)
Thank you for the post. I do think our lives are enriched by meeting and talking to strangers which has _nothing to do with_ sex. This whole idea that women are only allowed to talk with people they know (and even that children are only allowed to Trick-or-Treat at houses they know) is frustrating and counter-productive. Be aware? Yes. Be locked in a box? No thank you.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]vito_excalibur
2005-06-22 04:48 am UTC (link)
Exactly. See [info]harimad's comment: we're not the ones committing a crime, why should we be the ones who get locked up?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]red_frog
2005-06-21 02:12 pm UTC (link)
This is a more dramatic version of why I get so frustrated when going places by myself (and why I politely bit someone's head off for suggesting that I needed a bodyguard). I'm not 18, and I'm pretty streetwise by now. OTOH, I resent the hell out of the idea that being out by myself--being around alcohol, heaven help me--is an invitation.

When I was in college and studying anthropology we learned about the Mundurucu, a South American (Amazonian; I believe in the area of Brazil) tribe that had a curious custom. Women were not supposed to be by themselves; they always ran errands in pairs. The only reason that a woman would be by herself was to meet a lover in the woods, illicitly. Therefore, teenage boys would hang out on the paths, because, if they encountered a lone woman on the path outside the village, they could demand sex and she'd either have to give it or face ostracism for being a slut since she was obviously out for sex.

Barbaric, no? And yet, as someone who goes out by herself quite often it sounds familiar.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]vito_excalibur
2005-06-22 04:49 am UTC (link)
Yep. We're still dealing with that attitude in some places.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]harimad
2005-06-21 02:19 pm UTC (link)
There are rights and there are practicalities.

I - and everyone else, male or female - have the absolute and utter right to say "No, I don't want sex" at any stage of the process, including after penetration. Furthermore, if ones doesn't say "Yes" it's rape; there are situations where one is in no condition to say "No," such as when drunk.

On the other hand, it's impractical to act as if everyone on earth will follow the above paragraph. It behooves us to act in a reasonably self-protective manner, just as we would not announce while walking through a ghetto that we're carrying several thousand dollars in cash. Having to do so is not right, but it is practical.

In the 1970s there was a rash of rapes in Israel. The Israeli Cabinet urged Prime Minister Golda Meir to institute a curfew on women for their protection. She snapped back No! A man is doing the raping, if there is a curfew it will be on men.

This has been obvious to me since junior high school. Anything else makes me wonder "What the heck is wrong with you, that you think that?" or "Why are you under the impression that men not only have no control, but that women are supposed to be responsible for the consequences of this belief?" Makes it hard to change people's attitudes, when you have no understanding of them at all.

Men Can Stop Rape is an organization I've been involved in for years. The post on the front page of the website is my favorite from the My Strength Is Not For Hurting campaign. Check them out: www.mencanstoprape.org

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)


[info]sterlingspider
2005-06-21 09:54 pm UTC (link)
It behooves us to act in a reasonably self-protective manner, just as we would not announce while walking through a ghetto that we're carrying several thousand dollars in cash. Having to do so is not right, but it is practical.

The problem with your metaphor is that it doesnt reflect the same circumstances as beign a woman. The "ghetto" is the entire world (including in your home, in your bedroom, fast asleep) and the several thousand dollars in cash is actually a 3 foot tall gold and jewel encrusted helmet that you can't take off and can't hide.

The very same situation is discussed here and addressed far better then I could hope to.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]vito_excalibur, 2005-06-22 05:04 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]sterlingspider, 2005-06-22 05:50 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vito_excalibur, 2005-06-22 05:04 am UTC (Expand)

[info]dianadragonfly
2005-06-21 02:50 pm UTC (link)
wow,
can I link to this?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]vito_excalibur
2005-06-21 03:16 pm UTC (link)
Yes, it's a public post. And thanks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]tamnonlinear
2005-06-21 03:00 pm UTC (link)
Wonderful and thoughtful post, thank you. I'll be reading the links throughout the day.

(Reply to this)

Found your post via Kitiara...
[info]grimepoch
2005-06-21 03:21 pm UTC (link)
My observation of why people find blame in anything they can in situations like these is to try as hard as they might to separate themselves from the incident, moreso a "this couldn't happen to me because" ideal.

People want to feel safe, and even if it involves stupid nonsense logical assumptions, they'll make them. I see it happen over male, female, race, religion, you name it.

The biggest problem is that it's almost like a the Law of Conservation of Stupidity and Prejudice. As soon as people are convinced not to treat someone less because of their skin / sex / age / religion / breast size / penis size, they'll just find something else and the behavior will continue, like hair color / foot size / body hair / toothpaste. :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Found your post via Kitiara...
[info]vito_excalibur
2005-06-22 04:50 am UTC (link)
My observation of why people find blame in anything they can in situations like these is to try as hard as they might to separate themselves from the incident, moreso a "this couldn't happen to me because" ideal.

Sure. And I can't blame people for wanting to feel safe, I want to feel safe myself. But the only way to move past this is to talk about the ways in which some of the things people do to feel safer about this make it harder for us to be safe.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]lightning_rose
2005-06-21 03:23 pm UTC (link)

Thank you for a most articulate post.

(Reply to this)

here via <lj user="regyt">
[info]faithhopetricks
2005-06-21 03:51 pm UTC (link)
Loved the whole post, but this was just Awesome:

Me, the last time I went off with three guys, it was because me and some co-workers went out for lunch. Yes, this involved walking down an empty street with three guys. No, I did not bring enough vaginas for everybody. Because THAT IS NOT MY JOB.

YES. THANK YOU.

(Reply to this)


[info]hnybny
2005-06-21 04:16 pm UTC (link)
In the case of the girl in Aruba, the men she tried to get a ride from were security guards. Men she probably trusted. I doubt she was thinking they would take advanatage. Sad but true. Policeman rape, Firemen rape, Teachers rape. Trusted people aren't always trustworthy.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]vito_excalibur
2005-06-22 04:55 am UTC (link)
As I understand it, the teenagers she left the bar with claimed they dropped her off with some security guards, but there's no evidence to that effect; police have released the security guards and arrested the teenagers. One of the security guards' families suggested that the teenagers tried to use the security guards as scapegoats because they are black.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]hnybny, 2005-06-22 04:53 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]hangedwoman
2005-06-21 05:03 pm UTC (link)
The "shoot the grizzlies" bit made me think of part of the aftermath of Matthew Sheppard's death. His murderers were saying that they felt threatened by Matthew coming on to them, as some sort of excuse for their violence. A common response to that was that if every woman who was intimidated by a man coming on to her responded with equivalent violence, blood would be running in the streets.

Sometimes there's a part of me that thinks some blood in the streets wouldn't be such a bad idea.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ysabel
2005-06-21 06:26 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I'll admit there's some part of me that really likes the idea of the whole grizzly metaphor as long as we get to take it to its logical conclusion.

But we know how well women who shoot men are treated by our legal system and our society, even when it's clear-cut self-defense, now, don't we? *sigh*

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]hangedwoman, 2005-06-21 06:33 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]dawntreader90
2005-06-21 05:43 pm UTC (link)
just a note to let you know i linked to this entry. and that i found you via [info]kitiara's journal. excellent post.

this is the kind of stuff that helps me answer the question, "why do you read live journal?" because people have excellent things to say sometimes.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]vito_excalibur
2005-06-22 04:56 am UTC (link)
Thank you very much. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]metaphorge
2005-06-21 05:49 pm UTC (link)
so my take is that being a man doesn't mean that you know shit about All Men; but when a man tells me that men are not to be trusted, I know that he himself is so deeply not to be trusted that he literally can not conceive of someone of his own gender who is trustworthy. And I keep that in mind.

A-fucking-men. (Pun, not intended.)

(Reply to this)


[info]deirdremoon
2005-06-21 06:06 pm UTC (link)
This is wonderful. Thank you for putting it into words, and especially for citing your references. :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]vito_excalibur
2005-06-22 04:56 am UTC (link)
Hey, thanks. And it's all about the references. Without references I'm just making stuff up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mandragoran
2005-06-21 06:43 pm UTC (link)
Excellent. I followed a friends link here and then, of course, had to post my own thoughts on the matter. I'd have to say, I agree.

(Reply to this)


Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…