Comments on: Safety and Sexism

By: bumbledraven

bumbledraven — Sat, 19 May 2007 10:22:57 +0000

Interesting. Liberals here are making the same conceptual error as the conservatives who misinterpret Ron Paul’s observations on “blowback” as “blaming America”.

By: Samhita

Samhita — Wed, 16 May 2007 05:59:12 +0000

Amazing where technorati can lead you sometimes.

Is there anyone not a complete imbecile who actually requires a recitation of the “historical, social, racial, economic and gendered reasons” for that disparity?

Yes, or I wouldn’t have written it. Did you read the comments on Digg?

But really, I don’t think google is to blame, I recognize that it is a technical thing, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t fucked up.

Oh and thank you for the bizarre inference comment. So sweet that you read all my writing.

By: Samhita

Samhita — Wed, 16 May 2007 05:58:41 +0000

Amazing where technorati can lead you sometimes.

Is there anyone not a complete imbecile who actually requires a recitation of the “historical, social, racial, economic and gendered reasons” for that disparity?

Yes, or I wouldn’t have written it. Did you read the comments on Digg?

But really, I don’t think google is to blame, I recognize that it is a technical thing, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t fucked up.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 16 May 2007 02:17:50 +0000

Furthermore, in a typical incident in which a woman is raped the fact that she engaged in risky behavior is seen by the rapist and the society at large as somehow obviating blame on the part of the rapist.

By the rapist? Sure, I guess that’s why they’re rapists. By society at large? What “society at large” do you hang out with? In the world I inhabit, when credible accusations of rape come to light, they are investigated, and if found true, armed men seize the rapist and imprison him, not the victim, for several years.

Even those who might express a (I agree, wrongheaded) sentiment that “she had it coming” because of her dress or being in a bad neighborhood or being intoxicated, do those people actually consider the rapist to be less blameworthy? Do they advocate reduced sentences for rapists who target victims who in their opinion, did something to increase the likelihood that they would be victimized?

By: Roach

Roach — Fri, 11 May 2007 20:05:16 +0000

First, it is pretty stupid to suggest that women do not and should not be more careful than men (if they do not mean to be subject to violence). Wishes are not horses. Men are still men, and some of them are violent. This is not changing. . . . ever. Men have rough physical parity with one another, but women do not. They are smaller and, more important, are sexually attractive to men and may be raped by bad and violent men.

Drinking to excess is problematic for men and women; but for a man, he might lose his wallet and get beat up, most likely. A woman will have to deal with the trauma of rape. Is this fair? Nope. Why do people think life is fair or that by wishing and whining and hectoring men in general that somehow demented criminal behavior will be lessened significantly. Criminals are not normal. They are low IQ, many are socipathic, most have prior criminal records, they have short time horizons, etc.

Violent criminals should be identified and locked up. It’s pollyanish to think this group that also likes to fight with itself, other men, steal cars, and otherwise act abominably will listen to alternative PSAs about how wrong it is to rape or assume a woman wants sex because she’s drunk and in your bed and naked. I’m sure most know it’s “wrong,” they just don’t give a crap.

Economists have a concept called the cheapest cost avoider. The car theft example is a good one. There is an optimal mix of expenditure on street lights, police patrols, and devices like the club. The first dollar spent on things like locking doors, windows, and physical protection like the club or an alarm system are often much more wisely spent than the second or third or fourth dollar on police patrols. And, in this instance, the ounce of prevention in not having 40 ounces of malt liquor with a stranger while dressed like a whore is well worth the pound of cure in avoiding being raped.

I suppose, though, one can wish the world were fair, act any old stupid way, and feel righteous as one recovers in the emergency room.

This is the ridiculous world we live in. We have told women it is wrong for them to be treated differently than men and wrong for men to lust after them and hurt them and all the rest, even though we know that a certain percentage of men will do these things and that these things are more likely if you’re scantily clad or drunk or in an unsupervised situation.

Life is not fair. You must act accordingly.

By: X. Trapnel

X. Trapnel — Fri, 11 May 2007 19:05:18 +0000

I think Joeo gets at an important aspect of this: the perception of risk and causality is both moralized and lacking in evidentiary basis … and it’s precisely *because* it’s moralized in a sexist way that the “common sense” causality and statistics go unquestioned. There’s absolutely no evidence I know of that responding to the latest drunk-man-gets-killed-in-the-wee-hours incident with “guys, be careful in your drinking!” would save fewer lives than the standard script for a dead-female incident, and yet only the latter ever gets pulled out. I think there’s good reason to suspect patriarchal cultural influences in our eagerness to insist expression-for-safety tradeoffs are always obviously sensible for women, and yet not so much for men.

By: joeo

joeo — Fri, 11 May 2007 04:03:00 +0000

Men are more at at danger of violent crime than women.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fvvc.htm

If my math is right, men are about 2 1/2 times as likely to be victimized by strangers than men.

Women in general take fewer risks. But for some reason, each time a women is killed by a stranger and it makes the news is an occasion to say that women need to take even fewer risks. You really don’t see anything similar when men are victimized.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Fri, 11 May 2007 02:43:47 +0000

Carson:
Well, that would be an accurate if somewhat banal point if that’s what she meant. But I think it’s also very clearly not what she meant.

By: sangfroid826

sangfroid826 — Fri, 11 May 2007 01:42:52 +0000

Males are more capable of handling large amounts of ethanol than females. 1) Women metabolize alcohol more quickly than a men. 2) Women have less of an enzyme (dehydrogenase) that makes alcohol inactive. Ergo, Women get drunk faster & stay drunk longer. So of course the risks are greater, even if you removed sex from the equation.

By: carson17

carson17 — Fri, 11 May 2007 00:39:07 +0000

You seem to be saying, in the passage I quoted, that Vanessa’s objection is based on the mistaken notion that boys and girls face the same risks (“I’m not going to go digging for the data, but I would be utterly shocked if these were, in fact, ‘the same’ risks.”).

I’m saying Vanessa knows they don’t face the same risks. That’s the problem. Pointing out to women that they face extra risk is not helpful, especially when it’s combined with the suggestion that the way to deal with the added risk is for women to limit their activities. A little more “there is never an excuse for rape,” a little less “what was she wearing?” would be nice.