If you think that women “ask for it” and that men falsely accused of rape is as big a problem as rape itself, then this post is for you!
If you think the cause of women being at the arse end of the employment carcass is that women like to be mothers and don’t want to get jobs, then feel free to comment on this post!
If you think that despite the moanings of feminists, we live in a matriarchal society then put your slippers on, have a brandy and get your nubile secretary to jot down a note as a comment!
If, when questions about the wrongness of the Iraq invasion come up, you suddenly come over all Germaine Greer like and burn your male boob bra in support of middle eastern women, then tip your ho a bit extra to type a response right here!
This is your post people! Why bother treading water in other posts, when you can swim like Thorpey in your very own lap pool?
So from now on, if ever you get the urge to “shake the boss” over a feminist post, don’t waste your breath, come to this very post and mark your territory. In fact, I’m sure the crew at LP will help you out and direct you right to this spot if you feel like a “piss up the alley”, instead of engaging you on their home turf. It’s to your advantage my friends, your very own spot of the left wing field that will be forever right!
Leave the other inferior posts to the birds, lads.
I’ll get back to you.
Please, don’t bother.
(Good idea, though, Flutey.)
And here’s a little story to illustrate just how much some women leave themselves open to being attacked:
Ten years ago I was home by myself, on a Monday, I had a little cold and was lying in bed, reading, when a man let himself in through the bathroom window, which (like a complete slut) I had left slightly open. Following his natural needs he innocently came into my bedroom and walked up to my bed. I, being a stupid harpy, leaped out of bed, without even waiting for him to ask me if I was up for it, threw a lamp at him, swore, pushed him to the floor, and ran out the front door wearing nothing but a pair of knickers. I went to the flat upstairs and had a shuddering attack. He was gone of course by the time the police arrived.
I have had plenty of people tell me since that I perhaps should not have been home in bed on a workday, should not have left a window open in a ground floor flat in st kilda, and should not get into my own bed so scantily dressed - a few more rebukes like that won’t make much difference. So blame away!
Thank God reason has descended!
So, has anyone noticed that I get much more media attention than all those pussy-whipped leftoid academics? Yes, I do!
That’s just coz you’re a Sandra Bullock wannabe and tried to be one of Madonna’s gal pals!
If Howard Roark had taken my ‘no’ as a ‘no’, how would I have known I actually wanted it? If it were up to man-hating parasitical socialist harpies, a great man would have been railroaded to jail. Sometimes A is not A!
Come on EP, live a little.
Feeling flirty, flutey? Let’s do a switcheroo on this thread - EP style misogyny is so last thread.
LPs always lasted longer than EPs when I were a lad.
LPs always lasted longer than EPs when I were a lad.
they always have, they always will
Finally, a place for me to feel comfortable!
(pours brandy)
My biggest gripe is when the sheilas wear those low cut tops and short skirts and then make out like they’re not hanging for a banging. Fucking lezzo pinko feminists really rile me up.
I’d love to stay and chat, but I have a date with Tony Delroy and the opshop shite that’s up for grab on his quiz.
Ooh, ooh, pick me!
“There’s no such thing as a lesbian. They just need a good root.”
Do I pass?
You know what happens if you lose on Delroy, flutey? You can come right back here and blame those feminazi bitches at the ABC. The questions have a cultural bias in favour of sheilas and poofters. And obviously they have an affirmative action policy so that talented fellows such as yourself are passed over in favour of some stupid bint.
Since feminists stopped me, I’ve been obsessed by manholes.
I didn’t make it past his fifteen minute plug of ABC tat.
Laura,
What happened to you is similar to this
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17359505-1702,00.html
and to a lesser extent this
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17359536-1702,00.html
These sorts of violent attacks where the assailant is totally unknown to the victim as your case was, are of greatest concern because there is really no precautionary defense whatsoever, which is not to say that there should be. They are also of major concern because of the difficulty of conviction under our ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ legal system. Basically the police have to catch the offenders in the act, as was the case of the home invasion where the culprits were run to ground. You may know damn well a particular bastard (eg Hicks, Habib?) did it, or was up to no good, but you have to prove it. For example if I’m in a nightclub and get into an argument, break a glass and smash it into some poor punter’s face and take off there is a serious problem prosecuting me. Basically if I am picked up(because I’ve drunk there before and some information leads to my arrest- perhaps someone got my car number driving off)you will have to find at least one reliable witness who can say- Your honour, that’s the O there that did it, I’d know him anywhere, I’ve known him for years and I saw him smash the glass into the face of that bloke over there, etc, etc. If you can’t find such a witness or perhaps clear security camera footage, or the like and I deny it when questioned by police, then the DPP won’t even prosecute me, because they know they’d be wasting everyone’s time.
Same deal if you met me at the pub and I gave you a lift home(yeah, yeah, last century)and when you said goodnight and went to go inside, I pulled a knife and said get in the bedroom. You freeze and are compliant for fear of your life and I leave and you call the police with my car number, description, etc. All the DNA testing in the world can’t make you prove that I raped you, if I say I didn’t and you know what? I could do it again and again to some poor victim and have a ‘person of interest’ file a mile long and the courts can’t touch me until there’s a reliable witness to back you up. Unlike this scenario, the majority of rape victims know their rapist (date rape, etc) and that makes proof even harder, unless you fight like hell and bite, scratch, etc. The vast majority of victims are too shocked and frightened to do that and rightly so. What’s the answer? A panel of conservative Observas to listen to both sides and make a final judgement with no right of appeal. We’d probably clean an awful lot of scum off the streets, but the odd innocent would go down, no doubt about that.
Uh huh, but Observa, you’re missing the key point,which is that I was asking for trouble by going to bed in my underpants!! How is a guy meant to interpret that?
The bookend to this story is that when I tried out for Sale of the Century a year or so later I passed the test but when the time came to tell a “whacky story” about myself suitable for prime-time banter with Glen Ridge, all I could think of was how I’d broken my favourite lamp on the head of an intruder, ha ha, so not surprisingly they didn’t invite me back. Thus this little escapade cost me a pair of his & hers Audis and a Pro Hart painting.
Goodness me Laura, he obviously hadn’t read the rule book which states that if knickers are still on then it’s not on.
I bet you lie awake for hours over that Pro Hart painting.
People like to interpret their ideological enemies in the worst way possible so that it is easy to dismiss them and sleep safe in their sense of truth.
Laura, I don’t think anybody arguing on any thread would seriously suggest you deserved a break-in.
The sensible way of interpretting the response “you shouldn’t leave your window open” is as a piece of general and obvious advice. When my mobile phone was stolen out of my unlocked car somebody said “you should lock your car” and I wasn’t offended.
Naomi, is that when you take lipservice of the advice?
Once again, people seem to relish any opportunity to misunderstand people with a different view.
I was not saying that it is appropriate to tell people the obvious.
However, giving advice is not the same as saying you deserved it. Giving such advice does not justify the crime or decrease the responsibility of the criminal.
In a general discussion we are not giving any particular person advice. Some people are simply noting the fact that “unlocked cars get robbed more often” (or the sexual equivalent). And then it seems we’re being likened to rape apologists or evil sexists.
Naomi: I mean, look at our PM. It’s general and obvious to say sorry to Aborigines, but he’s not done it yet.
Have you ever suggested that he should?
Because a wise person once said: just because it’s general and obvious doesn’t mean we should say it
I’m not arguing with you here… but I’m not sure that your two sentences were consistent with each other.
Giving such advice does not justify the crime or decrease the responsibility of the criminal.
But is it really so difficult to understand why it is unwelcome and unhelpful in the posts here?
Firstly, you are acting as if we women haven’t had a lifetime of being told these things. Trust us - we know that some things put us at higher risk. We are not children.
Secondly, it is irritating to have discussions of how terrible rape or domestic violence are derailed by such obvious “advice”. Because most of it is not advice to “lock your doors”. It is more akin to “advice” that you shouldn’t buy nice things or you risk them being stolen.
Stop telling women not to flirt. Stop telling them to dress “appropriately”. Stop telling them they can’t get as drunk as men, live alone, walk the streets unchaperoned.
We’ve heard it all before, and we would like to change the focus to telling men that it’s not fair that women have their liberties curtailed.
Why don’t we start warning men that there’s a chance that they could be falsely accused of rape, so they shouldn’t be stupid enough to put themselves into a position where it could happen.
Men: don’t go to strange women’s houses. Make sure you have someone to look out for you. Don’t get too drunk that you can’t remember every minute detail of the evening in case you are cross examined in a court. Don’t act loutish then be surprised when someone assumes you are asking to be falsely accused of rape…
If you are really asking a question looking for an answer, then perhaps I can help.
I believe much of the discussion started because some of the left object to some on the right saying that they share responsibility for rape. The left said “the right is blaming the victim”.
The right responded (quite legitimately) that women do, self-evidently, have control over factors that will change the liklihood of being raped.
The right it attributing responsibility. The left thinks the right is attributing blame. These are different things. Responsibility is just about cause and effect and need not hold any moral judgement. This misunderstanding is effectively at the core of nearly all of this debate (except perhaps some depraved pro-rape people or some stupid anti-cause-and-effect people). Damn semantics. Damn it to hell!
You ask why the right defends itself. The answer is because they see the left misunderstanding them and want to set the record straight. I think you’ll find that most discussion of rape didn’t start with a blog posts about IR reform.
Further, while some people give advice… most people on the right are simply observing a cause-and-effect relationship. That doesn’t need to imply advice.
For example, I observe that women who avoid dating macho men get hit less often. Others may observe that different behaviour/clothes/drug use leads to different probabilities of sexual assault. That doesn’t imply blame, nor does it imply the need to change. Personally, I hope women do not take on the burqua just to avoid harassment.
I think you should be free to get as drunk as men, live alone, walk the streets naked if you like. But be aware that you are responsible for your actions and that certain actions happen to be related to certain outcomes (cause and effect).
You may have heard that before… but that message is quite confused because of the language misunderstanding. Your point (that men shouldn’t rape women) isn’t confused. Everybody already knows that, and there is no controversy there.
Unfortuantely, some people go further. They attack the right for “blaming the victim” and appear to attribute collective guilt. On the first point they misunderstand the right. On the second point I think the right largely misunderstands the left.
The left aren’t saying “all men are responsible for the actions of men”… they are simply trying to highlight a problem and are using what is (in my opinion) clumsy and unnecessarily divisive language. But their underlying point is not wrong.
Also — there is a real problem of men being treated unfairly (physical abuse, emotional abuse, accused of rape etc) and sometimes men feel that these problems aren’t taken seriously. That feeling doesn’t mix well with perceived accusations of collective guilt and accusations of moral inferiority.
Your suggested warnings to men would be appropriate in the context of a similar set of complaints. Indeed — these sorts of warnings are already common in many instances.
This makes no sense John Humphreys. If people have a right to drink, they have a right to drink safely equally. As to living alone and walking naked, boy, how old are you?
I’ve got a *special* place for those who exploit drunks and tell them that it’s their fault.
The right it attributing responsibility. The left thinks the right is attributing blame. These are different things. Responsibility is just about cause and effect and need not hold any moral judgement. This misunderstanding is effectively at the core of nearly all of this debate (except perhaps some depraved pro-rape people or some stupid anti-cause-and-effect people). Damn semantics. Damn it to hell!
So rape is reducible to women causing men to rape them? Men’s default ‘natural’ position is that of a rapist? We’ve covered this in the other thread John. Pretending any (social) cause is neutral and a-political is naive at best.
You need to state your position more thoroughly and clearly if you want to be taken seriously.
There’s only a cause-and-effect if, as Naomi said, you think all men are beasts who can’t help themselves from raping a woman who they see in a vulnerable position.
In the end, it’s not up to the woman to stop the rape: it’s up to the rapist who commits the rape. It’s his choice. It’s his action.
If there must be a cause and effect, it is that the rapist is the cause.
I’ll try to answer as much as I can. Perhaps best to do it one at a time…
DD: This makes no sense John Humphreys. If people have a right to drink, they have a right to drink safely equally.
I agree. I can’t see what doesn’t make sense.
DD: As to living alone and walking naked, boy, how old are you?
I’m 27. The living alone was an example given by the previous person (you didn’t ask their age) and walking naked was to show that I think you have the right to do anything (with what you own), even if it is very suggestive.
dk.au: So rape is reducible to women causing men to rape them?
I’m not sure whether you’re being serious or if this is a parody. In case you are serious — no, rape is not reducible to women causing men to rape them. Nothing I have said would lead a reasonable person to that conclusion.
dk.au: Men‚Äôs default ‘natural‚Äô position is that of a rapist?
I don’t believe that men’s default natural position is that of a rapist. However, I believe that some people (including men) do commit rape.
Likewise I don’t believe that a muslim’s default is to be a terrorist. But I understand that some people (including muslims) are terrorists.
With all due respect — these are stupid questions. The answers were already obvious, unless you are trying to misunderstand me. Unfortuantely, I believe that is common among people (from all philosophical backgrouns) as it helps them dismiss their ideological enemy. Sigh.
Naomi: There’s no direct cause and effect relationship between an open window and a rape.
You’re may be right, but I wouldn’t be suprised if people with unlocked houses did suffer a higher level of bugglary, home invasion and everything that goes with that.
I think you’ll find that there is a correlation between some female behaviour and getting raped. Then you’ll need to decide which way the causation goes, which should be easy be observing the order of behaviour (ie whether the rape came before or after the behaviour).
None of this is ideological or moral. It’s just a statement of boring old maths.
Naomi: The rape can only occur because the rapist decided to invade someone’s property and do it, same as theft can only occur if the thief chances the door to see if it’s unlocked.
I agree, but none of this is inconsistent with what I’m saying. Just because rape is wrong doesn’t mean we can’t explore the causes. Similarly, just because terrorism/theft/murder etc is wrong doesn’t mean we shouldn’t explore the causes. Sometimes this “root cause” approach is dismissed as defending the action. In response I suggest that knowledge is always better than ignorance.
Naomi: If we accept that rape is wrong - which we apparently all do, left or right - then the person who has to accept responsibility is the perpetrator, not the victim.
The perp definitely has to accept the blame. That says nothing about whether the actions of the victim changed the liklihood of the outcome. It is precisely the ambiguous use of the word “responsibility” that causes these debates.
Naomi: I believe that we do this blaming thing because if we can tell ourselves that the sufferer somehow brought it on themselves, we can be more confident that such an appalling thing will never happen to us.
I agree. Humans don’t like to not have a reason. That’s why we invented God.
Naomi: So instead of saying ‘you shouldn‚Äôt leave your window open, rapists will come in‚Äô the best response is actually ‘that sucks, I‚Äôm really sorry that happened to you.‚Äô
I haven’t told anybody to shut their windows. When my friends have gone through similar ordeals I do what friends are supposed to. I listen.
Naomi: (John Howard should do that too - and yes, I have asked him)
I thought you said that it can be annoying to give people obvious advice… ;p
John, correlation and causation aren’t the same thing.
And rapists, as we’ve already noted, tend to be family members or friends, and by definition are on the inside of the window in most cases.
Kate: There’s only a cause-and-effect if, as Naomi said, you think all men are beasts who can’t help themselves from raping a woman who they see in a vulnerable position.
No, there is cause-and-effect if you think that any man might change their behaviour based on the incentives in front of them.
I obviously need to stress again that cause-and-effect does not imply blame.
Perhaps it is also pointing out the obvious — that some outcomes are caused by lots of causes. A simple example: if you meet a person for coffee, was that meeting caused by
a) you going to the coffee shop
b) your friend going to the coffee shop
c) the coffee shop being open, etc etc
Kate: In the end, it’s not up to the woman to stop the rape: it’s up to the rapist who commits the rape. It’s his choice. It’s his action.
I agree, and this is not inconsistent with what I’m saying.
Kate: If there must be a cause and effect, it is that the rapist is the cause.
There is always a cause and effect. I didn’t invent that rule… and I would often like to break it. Damn Isaac Newton!
And the decision of the rapist is clearly one of the causes of rape. Further (and now I am making a moral & legal judgement) the rapist is also to blame.
Kim: John, correlation and causation aren’t the same thing.
Of course. I never implied otherwise. That’s why I specifically said “Then you‚Äôll need to decide which way the causation goes”.
I get the feeling people aren’t considering what I write. They are just looking for reasons to say I’m wrong.
Kim: And rapists, as we’ve already noted, tend to be family members or friends, and by definition are on the inside of the window in most cases.
I think people are taking the “window” example a little too literally. But anyway:
1) even if people are inside the window, they still may respond to changed incentives;
2) even if most rapes are done by family/friends, they still may resopnd to changed incentives; and
3) some rapes aren’t by family/friends, so the existence of those incentives are still relevant.
I’d question the degree to which “the decision” of the rapist is rational and amenable to an analysis conceived in terms of environmental or behavioural cues. But that’s perhaps to open a criminological debate.
Responses to incentives don’t have to be rational in any normal sense of the word. They just have to exist.
A good (the best?) solution is to increase the cost of rape so much that any other incentive changes are overwhelmed by the dissincentive against rape. Perhaps this can be achieved through white ribbons. I favour greater rights of self-defence and better policing.
The evidence on the effect of incentives on crime is overwhelming (though less so for the marginal dissincentive of the dealth penalty — but that’s a whole different story).
Sorry, John, I’m on a break from work and reading a little quickly.
My second comment was a belated response. The environmental theory of crime suggests that it’s largely a matter of removing incentives - the idea being that committing a crime is a rational decision. Hence crime prevention programmes which will make opportunistic theft more difficult. However, there’s an underlying ontology which presumes that certain people are predisposed towards crime.
I think it’s a bit simplistic in terms of explaining both the motivation and emotional context for crime and also only brushes the surface in terms of what leads to or prevents specific acts at certain times and in certain places.
My point regarding the large % of perps being known to the victims is that the crime is embedded within a particular relationship, and is normally the culmination of a period of abuse or degradation over time.
If what we’re concerned about is opportunistic rape, then we need to make that clear - because the myth is that most rapes happen to women at random in dark places, etc, by people they don’t know.
However, sensible approaches to the prevention of that sort of rape should focus not on the victim (or possible victim) but on the offender (or possible offender) - ie responsible service of alcohol, safe access to public transport, good lighting in public places, and also community responsibility individually and collectively for the safety of others.
I hope I’ve made myself clearer. Probably won’t be able to respond to any further comments for a bit - work beckons!
The debate about the causes of crime is an interesting one. The econometric evidence for incentives changing behaviour is huge.
However, that doesn’t prove that all criminal behaviour is rational. Just that incentives matter (at least some of the time). Therefore, changing incentives can change the outcome.
I take your point about where most rapes occur. I have no disagreement with you there.
I also agree with you that societies approach to preventing rape should focuss on the offender, not the victim.
The end.
Well, ‘the “window example”‘ is a real example. I have no idea whether it’s representative, except in that telling this story, as I very occasionally do, typically leads to a conversation exactly like the one that’s just happened here: a lot of solemn inquiry into how far the open window (which occupies the same place in this story as short skirts and drunken flirting do in other women’s) represented an opportunity, invitation, and/or incentive for the intruder.
I know it is a representative story in that this is the response it elicits and the same response follows narratives of completed assaults. People look for what I could have done differently. Well meaning or not, the responsibility is passed to me where it doesn’t belong.
As for causes and effects, fair enough maybe everything does have its causes, but why single out the open window? Why not the million other factors? It’s a rhetorical move that looks suspiciously like blame, especially when set agaisnt all the other “causes” that might have been named.
And yeah, I’m bitter about missing out on game show quiz nerd stardom. Doesn’t it show?
Laura, I have no deep sociopolitical observations, as usual but may I say …. game show quiz nerd stardom has not passed you by. Audition for Temptation! I did, a few weeks back and it was a breeze …
all puns are banned and if you go on Temptation you are a buzzerstard!
I do not understand that pun Naomi so no … I might get on next year, might not. I might tell people about it, I might not. Depends on if it is extremely humiliating or just ordinarily humiliating.
puns about open windows are a breeze