|
Post by rational on Mar 23, 2015 8:55:52 GMT -5
Not at all. My premise is that the folks who were offered Lot's virgin daughters were homosexual. Is your premise that every man in the city was offered Lot's daughters, and every man in the city rejected the offer preferring the male visitors? It's not my premise, I read about in in the bible. Genesis 19:4Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. And the responsible male, going for the Father of the Year award, responds: Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 23, 2015 9:01:11 GMT -5
I agree that men have come a long way. I think it is difficult for men to understand things women face regularly that they never have to face. I learned some humility when I joined an anti-racist collective organized by women of color some years ago. I joined after hearing a woman of color say to a white woman, "If you had to live in my body for a year, you wouldn't be saying the things you are saying!" As this was almost verbatim what I had said to a number of men over the years, I resolved to pay the kind of attention to racism that I wished men would pay to sexism. I was astounded to learn how "tone-deaf" I was...how there was a world of daily experience of racism by people of color that I had no idea about without someone spelling it out for me, how I and other women like me took up "a lot of space" and came into meetings with an unconscious sense of entitlement and superiority....I had no idea about this before it was laid out in front of me over and over again in ways I couldn't deny. It was disconcerting to realize how predictable we white women were for those who lived with racism. I am sure I had half a chance of hanging in there with the discomfort of looking hard at racist patterns because of the experience I have had with men and sexism (thanks, guys?). Anyway, I feel that there are a lot of parallels with sexism. Although I want to hold mens' feet to the fire, I understand that they are up against more of a mental block than most of them have any idea about and I understand the impulse to be resistant and defensive and the impulse to presume that one has the "logical" solutions and a need to "explain" them to us. Still.... Wow! Congratulations to you for this well thought out, informative, convincing and inspiring post. I really enjoyed this one. Thanks. For me, this is what makes it worthwhile being on here. Thank you for the feedback. This represents a very significant experience in my life and I am glad if you can take inspiration from it!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 23, 2015 9:10:32 GMT -5
No argument here. Are you thinking that you need to explain this to me?? I am thinking you are not the only one reading here and for many sexual issues cloud the discussion. Who is suggesting she is in any way responsible for the criminal acts of another? I still get the feeling that responsibility is being looked at as blame. Let me try a different angle. You made the following statement: In this, and other, discussions there has been an outcry if it is suggested that the victim needs to take responsibility for their actions. Accusations of re-victimizing are made. This belief seems to be that these incidents happen in a vacuum. But the situations are the result of the actions of the people involved. And the people taking those actions are responsible. Again, this is not assigning guilt/fault/innocence. I think it is useful to examine the circumstances of a rape and work with a rape survivor to learn anything they can from the choices they made ("take responsibility") that might have put them in harms way. What I will say over and over again, is that for a number of reasons, this is NOT an appropriate way to "lead off" a discussion with a rape survivor who has just arrived at a police station to report a rape. If you need me to elaborate, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 23, 2015 9:24:01 GMT -5
Matisse and dmmichgood, there is no need to be derogatory. I find it unpleasant and it makes me question my presence here. These issues are too important to stifle conversation about them through demeaning personal remarks. Maja, I am sorry that what Matisse and I say causes you to "find it unpleasant and it makes me question (your)presence here."
Also that you think the simple remark, Hint: If you cannot, don't "worry your pretty little head"! as derogatory & demeaning personal remark.
Here is what Jesse_Lackman posted : "There are only two ways to deal with a world that's perceived to be inherently misogynistic:
Eliminate misogyny, or teach and use proactive prevention power at the individual level.
Given the low success rate of changing the behavior of others as a solution, I believe the second is the most logical and rational approach.
A proactive before-the-event solution is always better than merely reacting after an event has happened.
Advocating the personal empowerment approach isn't as "feel good" though because uninvolved people can't get on their self righteousness bandwagons and crucify the perpetrators.
Doing that feels good but will never be an effective way to prevent the victimization on the front lines where it actually happens."
Jesse uses the word "perceived" misogynistic world. Is he telling we women that we are only "perceiving the world to be misogynistic?
He goes on to say that since there is "such low success rate of changing the behavior of others," that we need to use a "proactive prevention power at the individual level."
Then he tells we women that using such a "proactive prevention" may not be much of a "feel good" solution, but when we get together in large group for solutions that we are are only getting on "self righteousness bandwagons and crucify the perpetrators."
Isn't he himself exhibiting "misogynistic" behavior by not "trusting" women to realize what we need to do?
We can disagree on issues while staying respectful to each other.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Mar 23, 2015 9:30:50 GMT -5
Who is suggesting she is in any way responsible for the criminal acts of another? I still get the feeling that responsibility is being looked at as blame. The answer to your question is no one. And your feeling is spot on IMO, that has been happening on this thread to anyone who mentions individual responsibility or consequences. Apparently misandry can cause the same kind of tone deafness misogyny is alleged to cause. I don't know how else to explain it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 23, 2015 9:35:46 GMT -5
Peer review can mean herd mentality. Peer review, in a respected journal, means that the data source and the methodology have at least been reviewed by people in the field.And the peer reviewed paper he has published on the topic is where?I guess the Mother Jones reference missed the mark as humor. Gary Kleck is opposed to gun control. The work he presented has come under question by many entities. His claim, needed to support his premise, that someone used a gun to defend themselves in the US 2.5 million times per year cannot be supported. The Kleck study is flawed and has been discounted by a number of research papers. Myths About Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws examine some of the points considered in error. In any case, this is not a discussion about people's right to own guns. Whether possessing a gun will make life safer for the owner is certainly not a given.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 23, 2015 9:43:03 GMT -5
Let me try a different angle. You made the following statement: In this, and other, discussions there has been an outcry if it is suggested that the victim needs to take responsibility for their actions. Accusations of re-victimizing are made. This belief seems to be that these incidents happen in a vacuum. But the situations are the result of the actions of the people involved. And the people taking those actions are responsible. Again, this is not assigning guilt/fault/innocence. I think it is useful to examine the circumstances of a rape and work with a rape survivor to learn anything they can from the choices they made ("take responsibility") that might have put them in harms way. What I will say over and over again, is that for a number of reasons, this is NOT an appropriate way to "lead off" a discussion with a rape survivor who has just arrived at a police station to report a rape. If you need me to elaborate, let me know. I am not certain that I have said the first thing to do is to determine the victim's responsibility. In fact, I do not believe I have ever stated a timeline. One of the cases central to this thread happened years ago and this was when I made the original suggestion that acknowledging the responsibility of the victim would possibly provide others with some insight of how to mitigate the possibility that they would find themselves in the same situation. I am not sure but under the emotional response(s) I think we might be on the same page. (shields up!)
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 23, 2015 9:43:31 GMT -5
Nobody, male or female, on this thread has stated that women don't need to learn how to avoid bad situations or learn ways of defending themselves if attacked. Nobody. Posts like these certainly don't imply a call for avoidence and self defense; Precisely why the s@#&bags don't hesitate to rape. I'm tired of women getting hurt like this and having little to no recourse. That seems to be saying there is little to nothing a woman can do in the way of recourse except expect s@#&bags to not be s@#&bags. I don't think any woman on this thread pointed out things like biting a tongue off, breaking bones, or using a gun the way the men did. Instead the men who advocated logical and effective pre-emptive self-defense against s@#&bags got treated like knuckle dragging troglydites who need to listen up and learn how to treat women better. Guns probably stop more s@#&bags than all the Ted type talks you could hope to drum into the s@#&bags AND mysognistic troglydites. This thread is about LW and the fellowship, not about walking in a dangerous part of town late at night. Church is supposed be a safe community. Of course, things can happen, but should I prepare for a worker's visit or going to convention (or convention preps as in the case of this SW) the same way I would prepare for going to a dangerous part of town? Interestingly, several professing women who are aware of issues of abuse in the fellowship have told me that they have guns and that that they would use them against workers in self-defense. Is this the kind of church or community I want to be a part of where I have to carry a gun in order to safely participate in? No, thank you. My preference is for the "good guys" to stand up to "thugs" (whether perpetrators or enablers - overseers who make the fellowship a safe haven for perpetrators) and make it a community where I don't have to think about self-defense when a minister comes into my home.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 23, 2015 10:26:12 GMT -5
Let me try a different angle. You made the following statement: In this, and other, discussions there has been an outcry if it is suggested that the victim needs to take responsibility for their actions. Accusations of re-victimizing are made. This belief seems to be that these incidents happen in a vacuum. But the situations are the result of the actions of the people involved. And the people taking those actions are responsible. Again, this is not assigning guilt/fault/innocence. I think it is useful to examine the circumstances of a rape and work with a rape survivor to learn anything they can from the choices they made ("take responsibility") that might have put them in harms way. What I will say over and over again, is that for a number of reasons, this is NOT an appropriate way to "lead off" a discussion with a rape survivor who has just arrived at a police station to report a rape. If you need me to elaborate, let me know. I am not certain that I have said the first thing to do is to determine the victim's responsibility. In fact, I do not believe I have ever stated a timeline. One of the cases central to this thread happened years ago and this was when I made the original suggestion that acknowledging the responsibility of the victim would possibly provide others with some insight of how to mitigate the possibility that they would find themselves in the same situation. I am not sure but under the emotional response(s) I think we might be on the same page. (shields up!)
You may be right. Let me know when you have settled down and we can try again! ;D
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 23, 2015 10:28:21 GMT -5
This thread is about LW and the fellowship, not about walking in a dangerous part of town late at night. Church is supposed be a safe community. Of course, things can happen, but should I prepare for a worker's visit or going to convention (or convention preps as in the case of this SW) the same way I would prepare for going to a dangerous part of town? I brought up the dangerous part of town as an example. There is the idea of being responsible that is separate from the idea of fault. Should you have to prepare when going to church? Of course not. But realistically, the same dangers can present themselves anywhere and being aware, whether you should need to or not, is probably good advice. But is having a 'protection squad' the answer? Do you see that as the only solution? In an ideal situation you would not be relying on the 'good guys' but on yourself. The fact that this is difficult for a woman may mean that the change needs to start deeper.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Mar 23, 2015 10:39:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 23, 2015 10:55:58 GMT -5
Posts like these certainly don't imply a call for avoidence and self defense; That seems to be saying there is little to nothing a woman can do in the way of recourse except expect s@#&bags to not be s@#&bags. I don't think any woman on this thread pointed out things like biting a tongue off, breaking bones, or using a gun the way the men did. Instead the men who advocated logical and effective pre-emptive self-defense against s@#&bags got treated like knuckle dragging troglydites who need to listen up and learn how to treat women better. Guns probably stop more s@#&bags than all the Ted type talks you could hope to drum into the s@#&bags AND mysognistic troglydites. This thread is about LW and the fellowship, not about walking in a dangerous part of town late at night. Church is supposed be a safe community. Of course, things can happen, but should I prepare for a worker's visit or going to convention (or convention preps as in the case of this SW) the same way I would prepare for going to a dangerous part of town? Interestingly, several professing women who are aware of issues of abuse in the fellowship have told me that they have guns and that that they would use them against workers in self-defense. Is this the kind of church or community I want to be a part of where I have to carry a gun in order to safely participate in? No, thank you. My preference is for the "good guys" to stand up to "thugs" (whether perpetrators or enablers - overseers who make the fellowship a safe haven for perpetrators) and make it a community where I don't have to think about self-defense when a minister comes into my home. Well said Maja. It seems strange to me that folks would lower their expectations of the fellowship to such depths, and encourage others to do the same. The apostle Paul expected better...
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Mar 23, 2015 10:59:31 GMT -5
This thread is about LW and the fellowship, not about walking in a dangerous part of town late at night. Church is supposed be a safe community. Of course, things can happen, but should I prepare for a worker's visit or going to convention (or convention preps as in the case of this SW) the same way I would prepare for going to a dangerous part of town? Interestingly, several professing women who are aware of issues of abuse in the fellowship have told me that they have guns and that that they would use them against workers in self-defense. Is this the kind of church or community I want to be a part of where I have to carry a gun in order to safely participate in? No, thank you. My preference is for the "good guys" to stand up to "thugs" (whether perpetrators or enablers - overseers who make the fellowship a safe haven for perpetrators) and make it a community where I don't have to think about self-defense when a minister comes into my home. There is a difference between the collective vs individual mindset. One thing remains a fact: on the one-on-one personal level each individual is ultimately responsible for their own choices, actions, and protection. Nothing will change that. Its the "verify" part of "trust" that an individual cannot ever afford to ignore. My wife and I spent a couple hours talking about the letter Scott posted on this thread. We had read it all a few years ago. People here would say the letter writers are not "system worshippers" because they are willing to stand up to the system. Yet looking deeper you can see an element of system, or collective, worship. It's confirmed in the first line of the letter: "We are writing to let you and those listed below know that our greatest concern is for the Kingdom, and keeping it pure and holy". The greatest concern is the collective, the system, and keeping it pure and holy. Here on TMB anyone who is skeptical of the viability of that kind of human driven collective centric solution is labeled "system worshippers" or "system protectors" or "enablers". That is really ironic when you think about it. Is it possible for one individual to force another to be pure and holy? If so, how? Individuals forcing others to become what they consider to be pure and holy would be the only way an individual could force a collective of individuals to be pure and holy. Has God given that power to individuals? Life has taught me the only way it would be possible to keep a group of people "pure and holy", or any other way you want all the individuals in the collective to be, is if the individuals were robots, and you were the programmer. What gives any individual that right? Totalitarian regimes haven't been able to do it - even at the point of a gun. Does God want a kingdom of programmable robots? If so, who does the programming, their fellow robots? God and Jesus would have had the power to force a collective of clones but even one of the twelve turned thief and betrayer - and neither God nor Jesus did anything to stop it. The trick in life is how to get along with people who don't live up to your expectations. The first step in that direction is realising that you have little power to force others live your expectations, and they have little power to force you live theirs. It's pretty amazing how far away so many Christians get from the most basic things Jesus taught; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 23, 2015 11:01:07 GMT -5
So basically what I should do is stay at home, drink hot chocolate and make sure my doors and windows are locked in order to stay as safe I as I can be? Because if I don't I am choosing to put myself out there in a world where men still think it's okay to attack women? So if I choose to go out and enjoy myself, dressed in a modest enough way, not trying to attract attention to myself and I get raped, I should have made a different choice? I am all for taking responsibility for my actions if that is warranted. Sometimes it truly isn't our fault. So shouldn't our goal be to change men's views of women so that more of us, more of the time are safer to venture out alone in the world? Stay at home, and whatever you do, don't go to convention preps or open your home to a brother worker without a gun handy, or you will be blamed for whatever may happen to you. Now, if you kill the perp, you will still be blamed for it and worse, so better just stay at home and don't let a brother worker inside.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Mar 23, 2015 11:19:45 GMT -5
Maja, would you let me in your home? Why or why not? If you would why not an average brother worker?
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 23, 2015 11:25:22 GMT -5
Maybe all women should just stay home and have arranged marriages. After all date rape is common and a woman is not safe even with a guy she knows. Maybe we should copy Saudi Arabia where a woman is not allowed out without her husband or male relative. But that won't work completely either. Men kill their wives even if they stay home and take care of the children and are subservient. Domestic deaths are very common because of the belief that some men have that women are property. Women are not safe no matter what they do. They are just as likely to die at the hand of their husband or father so some supposed infraction. And this extreme kind of domestic abuse happens more in societies where there is no shame attached to it and where the perpetrator expects to go unpunished. In the Fellowship, there is very little shame attached to sexual abuse and perpetrators expect to go unpunished and free to keep repeating the same behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Mar 23, 2015 11:31:56 GMT -5
Married men and women with guns in their house shoot each other far more often than any one else. With that kind of potential violence why ever get married? Your spouse might be the one most likely to kill you. What is the solution? It's not no guns. How would violence in marriage be eliminated? Same question for any group of people.
The best any "good" individual can do is keep pressure on and hope it stays between the ditches. That's the essence of what Katz is saying in the Ted talk. The wheel tracks will look like a drunk driver but that seems to be the sad reality of the human race.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 23, 2015 11:33:32 GMT -5
I really don't see why women can't be as safe as men. If some men can control themselves, see women as equal etc., then it is possible for all men. To say men men can't control themselves really doesn't give men much credit. You haven't said what the sermon said, so I don't know if that was part of it or not, but it's a common excuse used for why men assault women. But from what I have read it's not about sex and more about power over someone. So that isn't really a good excuse. I would qualify that be saying it should be possible for some men to control themselves after I have given some consideration to those men who suffer mental illnesses and are incapable of controlling themselves. The same applies to women as well, but such should not be freely roaming the streets OR convention grounds OR be sent to people's homes as ministers.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 23, 2015 12:07:08 GMT -5
This thread is about LW and the fellowship, not about walking in a dangerous part of town late at night. Church is supposed be a safe community. Of course, things can happen, but should I prepare for a worker's visit or going to convention (or convention preps as in the case of this SW) the same way I would prepare for going to a dangerous part of town? Interestingly, several professing women who are aware of issues of abuse in the fellowship have told me that they have guns and that that they would use them against workers in self-defense. Is this the kind of church or community I want to be a part of where I have to carry a gun in order to safely participate in? No, thank you. My preference is for the "good guys" to stand up to "thugs" (whether perpetrators or enablers - overseers who make the fellowship a safe haven for perpetrators) and make it a community where I don't have to think about self-defense when a minister comes into my home. There is a difference between the collective vs individual mindset. One thing remains a fact: on the one-on-one personal level each individual is ultimately responsible for their own choices, actions, and protection. Nothing will change that. Its the "verify" part of "trust" that an individual cannot ever afford to ignore. My wife and I spent a couple hours talking about the letter Scott posted on this thread. We had read it all a few years ago. People here would say the letter writers are not "system worshippers" because they are willing to stand up to the system. Yet looking deeper you can see an element of system, or collective, worship. It's confirmed in the first line of the letter: "We are writing to let you and those listed below know that our greatest concern is for the Kingdom, and keeping it pure and holy". The greatest concern is the collective, the system, and keeping it pure and holy. Here on TMB anyone who is skeptical of the viability of that kind of human driven collective centric solution is labeled "system worshippers" or "system protectors" or "enablers". That is really ironic when you think about it. Is it possible for one individual to force another to be pure and holy? If so, how? Individuals forcing others to become what they consider to be pure and holy would be the only way an individual could force a collective of individuals to be pure and holy. Has God given that power to individuals? Life has taught me the only way it would be possible to keep a group of people "pure and holy", or any other way you want all the individuals in the collective to be, is if the individuals were robots, and you were the programmer. What gives any individual that right? Totalitarian regimes haven't been able to do it - even at the point of a gun. Does God want a kingdom of programmable robots? If so, who does the programming, their fellow robots? God and Jesus would have had the power to force a collective of clones but even one of the twelve turned thief and betrayer - and neither God nor Jesus did anything to stop it. The trick in life is how to get along with people who don't live up to your expectations. The first step in that direction is realising that you have little power to force others live your expectations, and they have little power to force you live theirs. It's pretty amazing how far away so many Christians get from the most basic things Jesus taught; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." I don't see the couple who wrote the letter as forcing anyone to be pure and holy, but as expecting those who have shown themselves to be on the opposite end of the spectrum of pure and holy to be removed from the ministry. This is a normal expectation in most other churches. By now I know that many F&W know that there is immorality and abuse in the fellowship, but they are used to it and their expectations from workers are quite low. I, like this couple, have higher expectations of those who preach the Gospel and I am not ashamed of it. Besides, that's what workers assured us of before we professed and that's what we even heard from the platform at our last convention - that workers, unlike "false preachers," live what they preach. If you wish, the workers set us up for failure (having high expectations for them) through their preaching and proselytising tactics.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 23, 2015 12:13:09 GMT -5
Maja, would you let me in your home? Why or why not? If you would why not an average brother worker? I don't have an issue with individuals, but with the system that creates an unsafe environment. Would I stay in a dangerous neighborhood if I had the means to move to a safer one? No. The fellowship is like that dangerous neighborhood. So, while I may associate with individuals from the dangerous neighborhood, and even try to make the neighborhood safer if possible for the sake of those who are in it or even so I can move back to it, I would not chose to live in it.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Mar 23, 2015 12:20:38 GMT -5
By now I know that many F&W know that there is immorality and abuse in the fellowship, but they are used to it and their expectations from workers are quite low.
While some may feel that this isn't true, I have heard similar statements from many professing folks. That includes other workers, elders and convention ground owners. For the most part, these types of statements are concerning those who are in 'responsible' positions.......the senior brother workers/overseers.
It basically is stating that they do not trust the senior workers to show concern for the well being of the church, but rather only for the IMAGE that they want to project to members of the church.
Pretty sad, really.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 23, 2015 12:21:54 GMT -5
Married men and women with guns in their house shoot each other far more often than any one else. With that kind of potential violence why ever get married? Your spouse might be the one most likely to kill you. What is the solution? It's not no guns. How would violence in marriage be eliminated? Same question for any group of people. The best any "good" individual can do is keep pressure on and hope it stays between the ditches. That's the essence of what Katz is saying in the Ted talk. The wheel tracks will look like a drunk driver but that seems to be the sad reality of the human race. I am not sure I am following what you are saying. But, as for marriage or any other relationship or group we are participating in out of choice, my answer is not to have a gun, but to get out of that relationship or group. As for Katz, the essence of what he is saying is: when a professing woman or a SW is abused or harassed by a BW, the good guys in the ministry need to remove him from the ministry and the good professing guys need to put pressure on overseers to remove the offender from the work in order to create an environment where abuse and harassment are unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 23, 2015 12:23:33 GMT -5
By now I know that many F&W know that there is immorality and abuse in the fellowship, but they are used to it and their expectations from workers are quite low.While some may feel that this isn't true, I have heard similar statements from many professing folks. That includes other workers, elders and convention ground owners. For the most part, these types of statements are concerning those who are in 'responsible' positions.......the senior brother workers/overseers. It basically is stating that they do not trust the senior workers to show concern for the well being of the church, but rather only for the IMAGE that they want to project to members of the church. Pretty sad, really. This has been expressed to us by many workers and friends and not just in the US.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 23, 2015 12:38:10 GMT -5
By now I know that many F&W know that there is immorality and abuse in the fellowship, but they are used to it and their expectations from workers are quite low.While some may feel that this isn't true, I have heard similar statements from many professing folks. That includes other workers, elders and convention ground owners. For the most part, these types of statements are concerning those who are in 'responsible' positions.......the senior brother workers/overseers. It basically is stating that they do not trust the senior workers to show concern for the well being of the church, but rather only for the IMAGE that they want to project to members of the church. Pretty sad, really. If it concerned senior brother workers/overseers they would speak out about it.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 23, 2015 12:49:16 GMT -5
Married men and women with guns in their house shoot each other far more often than any one else. With that kind of potential violence why ever get married? Your spouse might be the one most likely to kill you. What is the solution? It's not no guns. How would violence in marriage be eliminated? Same question for any group of people. The best any "good" individual can do is keep pressure on and hope it stays between the ditches. That's the essence of what Katz is saying in the Ted talk. The wheel tracks will look like a drunk driver but that seems to be the sad reality of the human race. I would suggest that if you feel you need a gun to protect you from your spouse, don't get married. And if you feel you need a gun to protect you from sexual predators in any group - leave the group.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 23, 2015 12:49:27 GMT -5
I simply replied to what you wrote..."Think about this in a non-sexual way. A male walking through a high crime area displaying expensive items is attacked and robbed. The offender is guilty of the crime. The offender is responsible for his/her actions. And the victim is responsible as well. Is the victim guilty of wrong doing? No. But the victim's actions, as all actions, did contribute to the situation. Should the victim be able to walk anywhere without fear? Of course. Should the victim be blamed for walking in that area? Of course not." [Emphasis added.] To which I replied " If the victim knew the area, yes the victim is at fault of making the wrong decision - to walk there. Unless he had no other choice. Then, run fast, dodge, duck and hide, do whatever to get through. Yes, even offer up what he has for valuables." [Emphasis added.] As I said, the victim was attacked. I don't see that as his fault. I am guessing that when you he was at fault you are restricting blame to his decision making process and not to the crime.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 23, 2015 13:19:06 GMT -5
No one has said there are not. The question is whether women who own guns are safer than women who do not own guns. The jury is out on the overall effectiveness and risk of guns owned for protection. This is a surprisingly objective piece from CDC report Obama ordered; It is the same debunked claim that critics say dramatically exaggerated the frequency of defensive gun use by Gary Kleck. If all violence against women was at the hands of strangers the claim might make some sense.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 23, 2015 13:38:17 GMT -5
But that won't work completely either. Men kill their wives even if they stay home and take care of the children and are subservient. Domestic deaths are very common because of the belief that some men have that women are property. Women are not safe no matter what they do. They are just as likely to die at the hand of their husband or father so some supposed infraction. And this extreme kind of domestic abuse happens more in societies where there is no shame attached to it and where the perpetrator expects to go unpunished. In the Fellowship, there is very little shame attached to sexual abuse and perpetrators expect to go unpunished and free to keep repeating the same behavior. Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing by Radford and Russell might shed light on this subject.
|
|