2575: Cheetos, Doritos, Mojitos, Burritos

[FingerLakes]

I can't believe what I'm hearing in this episode!! What is this guest even talking about!

Keith!

You do NOT look innocent! The only reason I'm even attracted to you is cuz I think you'd smack me around before and during sex. Don't let any one tell you otherwise, Sir.

---------------------

JK JK
I agree with Chemda, of course. While I get Yamaneika's point in taking precautions, I think they were having different..discussions. Where Chemda was trying to get her/us out of the mindset of blaming the victim with our language of "what was she waering? What do you expect when you meet him in a chatroom!?" Yamaneika eventually started saying that everyone, women included, need to take all the precautions we can to avoid risks. But there's no real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that is sure to stop it. So let's stop ending the discussion on what they were doing or if they had their jewelry on display or if they were looking at their phone too much or drinking too much.

[jbliss]

Originally Posted by FingerLakes

There's no real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that is sure to stop it.

While that's true, if there's a real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that could possibly stop it even at a 1%, 2%, 3% chance, should we not be doing those things?

The choice is: you tell your daughter there is nothing she can do to mitigate risk...or you offer some basic guidelines. It's clear to me that the latter is what sane parents will do.

[memecherry]

Originally Posted by jbliss

While that's true, if there's a real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that could possibly stop it even at a 1%, 2%, 3% chance, should we not be doing those things?

The choice is: you tell your daughter there is nothing she can do to mitigate risk...or you offer some basic guidelines. It's clear to me that the latter is what sane parents will do.

CAN WE PLEASE STOP SAYING WE JUST NEED TO TELL OUR DAUGHTERS THINGS???? CAN WE MAKE THIS A LARGER CONVERSATION???????

[Lanfear]

Originally Posted by jbliss

While that's true, if there's a real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that could possibly stop it even at a 1%, 2%, 3% chance, should we not be doing those things?

The choice is: you tell your daughter there is nothing she can do to mitigate risk...or you offer some basic guidelines. It's clear to me that the latter is what sane parents will do.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T TALK TO KIDS ABOUT BASIC SAFETY ANYWHERE ON THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION.

You have some weird selective hearing/reading OCD. Why do you keep trying to bring this back to this point?

[jbliss]

Originally Posted by Lanfear

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T TALK TO KIDS ABOUT BASIC SAFETY ANYWHERE ON THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION.

You have some weird selective hearing/reading OCD. Why do you keep trying to bring this back to this point?

Because it's the easiest-to-understand argument I can think of to counter the "there's nothing we can do" arguments, of which there have been many:

"There's no real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that is sure to stop it."

"The University in my small, safe, "leave your doors unlocked" mountain town, had a serial rapist living on campus. The student would hide in the bushes and attack women. He raped three women before fleeing the state. So I ask you. How do we mitigate risk here?"

"When even wearing a burka and never being alone with unknown men prevents a woman from being raped it seems questionable to tell her to prevent it."

etc

These people have been trotting out arguments of:

- risk-mitigation strategies are not 100% effective

- risk-mitigation strategies are de-facto blaming the victim

I argue that the first is a straw man and the second is just false.

[Lanfear]

Originally Posted by jbliss

Because it's the easiest-to-understand argument I can think of to counter the "there's nothing we can do" arguments, of which there have been many:

"There's no real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that is sure to stop it."

"The University in my small, safe, "leave your doors unlocked" mountain town, had a serial rapist living on campus. The student would hide in the bushes and attack women. He raped three women before fleeing the state. So I ask you. How do we mitigate risk here?"

"When even wearing a burka and never being alone with unknown men prevents a woman from being raped it seems questionable to tell her to prevent it."

etc

These people have been trotting out arguments of:

- risk-mitigation strategies are not 100% effective

- risk-mitigation strategies are de-facto blaming the victim

I argue that the first is a straw man and the second is just false.

Again - nobody is saying that we shouldn't mitigate risk, indeed most everybody is saying that it already happens it just isn't 100% effective.

And while I believe that immediately saying 'what did she do/what should she have done' is a shitty move - I understand that impulse because it's very normal to think that.

What you are doing here is double triple quadrupling down on that being the only important topic we should discuss here, implying that we are endangering women by not wanting to engage you on that and in my book that is fucking hardcore victim shaming disguised as a savior complex.

Sparrow opened up a whole separate thread asking for concrete 'what are techniques to protect' - I don't see you typing ideas or asking for examples there.

[memecherry]

I brought up this thread to my mom... She says (I paraphrase):

"I grew up in a different time, in a machismo driven culture in Puerto Rico. You grow up in that, you grow up with an instinct to mitigate risk as much as possible. It's instinctual. My house was broken into, instinct kept me safe, but I admit luck was on my side too. Do we have to take care of ourselves? yes. But I agree the conversation needs to go beyond what women need to do to stay safe. Many of us instinctually learn it along the way by facing the world."

I am trying to challenge us to take the conversation larger than "what do we tell our daughters so that they don't become victims".

To respond to: "all men are told not to rape, but some still do" that tells me that there is a LARGER space to have these conversations with BOYS AND MEN.

Why are they still aggressive? Why are they told their feelings don't matter unless they are aggressive? Why are they told to just "go and get em". Why do we tell them to "suck it up, real men don't cry, that's what girls do". We teach boys little by little that sensitivity is a female trait and women are "victims" because they are sensitive... THAT MUST PLAY A PART IN ALL OF THIS!!!????

THESE THINGS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED OR WILL WILL STAY STUCK IN THE CYCLE WE ARE IN!!!!!!!!

[jbliss]

Originally Posted by Lanfear

Again - nobody is saying that we shouldn't mitigate risk, indeed most everybody is saying that it already happens it just isn't 100% effective.

If you say so. If true, I'm satisfied.

Originally Posted by Lanfear

And while I believe that immediately saying 'what did she do/what should she have done' is a shitty move - I understand that impulse because it's very normal to think that.

You'll note that not once have I suggested we do that. I've been very careful to stress that I'm talking about strategies we can teach *before* an assault.

Originally Posted by Lanfear

What you are doing here is double triple quadrupling down on that being the only important topic we should discuss here, implying that we are endangering women by not wanting to engage you on that and in my book that is fucking hardcore victim shaming disguised as a savior complex.

Again, not once have I written anything about "what did she do/what should she have done." Not once. I've specifically written that that's victim-blaming. I've been writing about things to teach our daughters *before* an assault.

Originally Posted by Lanfear

Sparrow opened up a whole separate thread asking for concrete 'what are techniques to protect' - I don't see you typing ideas or asking for examples there.

I wrote:

"We're not going to teach them some basic self-defense? We're not going to teach them to meet new guys at a coffee shop at noon instead of at his house at midnight?"

And then Apia wrote (and I agreed):

"I will tell my daughter not to get black out drunk, and when she meets someone new, to meet him at first in public, not at home. This might reduce her risk to be raped about 20%. Still 80 % to go, and it's not on her."

And then memecherry posted a screen shot with a useful link:

https://www.rainn.org/safety-prevention

[jbliss]

Originally Posted by memecherry

I brought up this thread to my mom... She says (I paraphrase):

"I grew up in a different time, in a machismo driven culture in Puerto Rico. You grow up in that, you grow up with an instinct to mitigate risk as much as possible. It's instinctual. My house was broken into, instinct kept me safe, but I admit luck was on my side too. Do we have to take care of ourselves? yes. But I agree the conversation needs to go beyond what women need to do to stay safe. Many of us instinctually learn it along the way by facing the world."

I am trying to challenge us to take the conversation larger than "what do we tell our daughters so that they don't become victims".

To respond to: "all men are told not to rape, but some still do" that tells me that there is a LARGER space to have these conversations with BOYS AND MEN.

Why are they still aggressive? Why are they told their feelings don't matter unless they are aggressive? Why are they told to just "go and get em". Why do we tell them to "suck it up, real men don't cry, that's what girls do". We teach boys little by little that sensitivity is a female trait and women are "victims" because they are sensitive... THAT MUST PLAY A PART IN ALL OF THIS!!!????

THESE THINGS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED OR WILL WILL STAY STUCK IN THE CYCLE WE ARE IN!!!!!!!!

I agree that the conversation needs to get bigger. I propose that, if there's anyone still here who thinks that stuff like this:

https://www.rainn.org/safety-prevention

...should not be taught to our kids PRE-assault because it's somehow victim-blamey to do so are not going to be very useful in the bigger conversation. I think there are not many people, if any, like that still here.

[Lanfear]

Originally Posted by jbliss

If you say so. If true, I'm satisfied.



You'll note that not once have I suggested we do that. I've been very careful to stress that I'm talking about strategies we can teach *before* an assault.



Again, not once have I written anything about "what did she do/what should she have done." Not once. I've specifically written that that's victim-blaming. I've been writing about things to teach our daughters *before* an assault.



I wrote:

"We're not going to teach them some basic self-defense? We're not going to teach them to meet new guys at a coffee shop at noon instead of at his house at midnight?"

And then Apia wrote (and I agreed):

"I will tell my daughter not to get black out drunk, and when she meets someone new, to meet him at first in public, not at home. This might reduce her risk to be raped about 20%. Still 80 % to go, and it's not on her."

I'm not a native speaker - are we having a language barrier here?
Everything you do/avoid/learn is influencing what happens? So I don't understand where you make that distinction at all?

Being taught not getting blackout drunk = less likely to get asked 'but did she drink'

Being taught not to invite people into your home 'too fast' (which according to Yamaneika is 1 year) = 'did you invite him in? You should have known better?

So every time I hear you say 'girls should habe been told' I hear 'girls should not have done that'

I might be a weirdo