It's an argument by analogy. Some men rape women, therefore the solution is to catch men as children and teach them not to rape. Some black people commit crimes, therefore the solution is to catch...
It's an argument by analogy. Some men rape women, therefore the solution is to catch men as children and teach them not to rape. Some black people commit crimes, therefore the solution is to catch black people as children and teach them not to commit crimes. Both are wrong, because both assume group guilt. The individual male is made to feel as though they are inherently a rapist, and society must intervene to 'fix' him. Both also miss the point - black people don't commit crime because nobody thought to tell them otherwise as children any more than men rape people. There are enormous correlates to sex crime by overall level of education and income, and all the bits that go along with that sort of sociodemographic data like urbanisation, migrant status, etc.
The sort of people who rape aren't going to perk up in sex ed and think 'huh, I didn't know I shouldn't do that'. We teach people not to break the law, and rape is against the law - therefore we are teaching people not to rape. Just like we teach people not to steal cars - but people still lock their cars, buy alarms, buy insurance etc rather than saying 'we should teach people not to steal cars'. The whole premise is ridiculous, the cultural issues are hugely complex, and are more than capable of steamrolling any effort to treat symptoms.
While the ideas permeate a culture ie that men ask women out on dates rather than the other way around, that women should be 'chased', that women should make men chase them so they don't 'give it up too easy', that sex is a win for men and a shame for women (including virgin shaming and slut shaming) - the culture isn't going to give 2 shits if you come in with all that in place and say 'don't rape women' - the people who can live in a culture like that and not rape women... already don't rape women. The solution for the others is to change the culture, there's literally no other way it can be done, and any attempts at symptom treatment are a waste of effort at best, but probably making it worse.
When most people say "teach men not to rape", they mean "don't raise boys in a culture which normalises male dominance over women". You don't teach boys & men not to rape, you teach them to...
The solution for the others is to change the culture
When most people say "teach men not to rape", they mean "don't raise boys in a culture which normalises male dominance over women". You don't teach boys & men not to rape, you teach them to respect girls & women, which should naturally flow on to a reduced normalisation of rape, which should reduce the number of men who feel entitled to treat women as objects and possessions.
You also teach them a good understanding of enthusiastic consent. I'm getting the feeling that not everyone is working off the same definition of rape in this conversation. It's not always a...
You also teach them a good understanding of enthusiastic consent.
I'm getting the feeling that not everyone is working off the same definition of rape in this conversation. It's not always a violent struggle. It's a lot more nuanced than that,
Read the article, and the examples in it: kidnapping, sexual assault, violent rape, murder. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Not just "date rape" or a misunderstanding about whether...
I'm getting the feeling that not everyone is working off the same definition of rape in this conversation.
Read the article, and the examples in it: kidnapping, sexual assault, violent rape, murder. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Not just "date rape" or a misunderstanding about whether consent was given.
Considering your comment, I would think that any sort of education would not be able to prevent kidnapping, violent rape, or murder. I actually think things like date rape, marital rape, and...
Considering your comment,
You don't teach boys & men not to rape, you teach them to respect girls & women, which should naturally flow on to a reduced normalisation of rape, which should reduce the number of men who feel entitled to treat women as objects and possessions.
I would think that any sort of education would not be able to prevent kidnapping, violent rape, or murder. I actually think things like date rape, marital rape, and misunderstandings about consent are the prime targets for education to fix - things certain men don't recognize as rape. I'm not sure what you say to a murderer or violent rapist (at any point throughout their life) to prevent them from being what they are.
There is a big problem with rape culture that can education can fix (things like victim blaming, taking sexual assault reports seriously, etc). But viewing rape (or any violent crime) entirely as a cultural/societal problem is not going to lead to a whole solution (though maybe it's the only way to approach the problem).
You can remove the sense that it's okay to rape women. With lots of men talking trash about women, treating them as sex objects, and generally disrespecting them, this creates an atmosphere that...
I'm not sure what you say to a murderer or violent rapist (at any point throughout their life) to prevent them from being what they are.
You can remove the sense that it's okay to rape women. With lots of men talking trash about women, treating them as sex objects, and generally disrespecting them, this creates an atmosphere that women are just there for men's pleasure. Some rapists believe they have implicit support for their actions from this atmosphere. They think they're entitled to take a woman because that's what their mates talk about all the time.
It won't prevent all rapes. You're right about that. However, it will reduce the number of rapes.
They should probably say that if they want people to hear that, as opposed to saying some completely different thing and expecting people to read their minds.
They should probably say that if they want people to hear that, as opposed to saying some completely different thing and expecting people to read their minds.
How are you defining culture in this situation? My general understanding of it is "the social behavior and norms found in human societies." There was a fascinating example of a baboon troop that...
How are you defining culture in this situation? My general understanding of it is "the social behavior and norms found in human societies."
There was a fascinating example of a baboon troop that drastically shifted its social structure to be more peaceful after all the large, aggressive males died due to disease. This cultural shift persisted for 2 decades (as of the writing of this article and publication of the research); individuals maintained the more peaceful structure despite new males joining the group. This is an example of how long-held behaviors that we may initially think are purely biological are actually in part cultural.
And as for this just being how life/mammals/humans are, one of our closest relatives (the bonobo) has a female dominant social structure. So it's not a simple matter of looking to nature to explain our history of male dominance. (Of course, chimpanzees don't have matriarchal groups, which makes this a very interesting area of research; does the difference stem from environment, genes, the likely combination of both?)
But nobody suggested targeted education at all, only @safeword. The original comment was addressing people who hold a viewpoint on sex ed as it applies to men, and arguing against that viewpoint....
But nobody suggested targeted education at all, only @safeword. The original comment was addressing people who hold a viewpoint on sex ed as it applies to men, and arguing against that viewpoint. @safeword read an argument against that viewpoint and apparently took it personally and ended up saying something remarkably stupid.
Nobody said sex education to teach consent and proper sex shouldn't be for everyone, equally. This situation is currently unfolding with the Ontario sex ed cirriculum if you read up on it. The sexual education is universal, for all children, and one of the chief goals is to give all children a proper understanding of consent, and the terminology and understanding to recognize sexual abuse. And yet there's a large, vocal movement of people who blatantly misrepresent it because they don't like the idea of sex ed at all.
And if a significant portion of rape cases can be solved by education, then that is already worthwhile. Just because there are still monsters out there doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Black people (in the West, at least) commit more crimes per capita than any other race. Men commit more rapes per capita than any other gender. It is as wrong to say 'men are rapists' as it is to...
Black people (in the West, at least) commit more crimes per capita than any other race. Men commit more rapes per capita than any other gender. It is as wrong to say 'men are rapists' as it is to say 'black people are criminals', and the idea 'teach men not to rape' should be considered equally as offensive as 'teach black people not to commit crime'.
Both are wrong, for pretty much exactly the same reasons.
I would say we already teach everyone not to commit crimes. In general though, we are poor at teaching consent. I didn't really read the article as saying we should teach boys not to rape, as much...
I would say we already teach everyone not to commit crimes. In general though, we are poor at teaching consent.
I didn't really read the article as saying we should teach boys not to rape, as much as we need to address the underlying issues around rape.
Isn't something wrong when we try to tell a group of people to basically protect themselves and leaving it at that?
Oh your store has been robbed twice, have you though of getting a shotgun?
Report from a sample of one female, here. There is an ordinary onslaught of less overt daily misogyny: I've had to contend, over the years, with opportunistic predators in the workplace, as well...
Report from a sample of one female, here. There is an ordinary onslaught of less overt daily misogyny: I've had to contend, over the years, with opportunistic predators in the workplace, as well as the routine inability to be solitary in public without someone assuming that I'm seeking male partnership. If you want to know what women's "locker room talk" consists of, this comprises an excessive share.
There are opportunities for men to be educated globally in better behavior, even without the possibility that the lessons might reduce rape and violence.
I once had to escape from a campus serial rapist who got an arm around my neck and tried to drag me into the bushes - I thought I was safe walking alone at night, as it was a well-lighted walkway and there were people nearby.
A randomly-taken women's self-defense class did "save" me; reflexively stomp, duck, run screaming... before the monster had a chance to tell me he had a knife, as it turned out he'd done to the other girls. Nonetheless, I was extraordinarily fortunate. There is no reason to expect that a woman who may be out-massed 2:1 by her male attacker, as I was, can defend herself reliably with or without weapons, especially from a practiced predator.
I now regularly work at night in potentially risky places - a badly-lit hospital parking lot is not a place where you want to be alone at 3 a.m. But when the guys asked if I carried anything special for defense, my answer was, "a security guard to escort me to my car".
I have to ask the question, why wouldn't a man feel comfortable asking for the same protection, under the same circumstances? Why would carrying a personal firearm or other weapon be a better solution?
Yes, it's appropriate at a personal level to assess risks and take the steps anyone would ordinarily take to defend against the dangers other humans may pose - situational awareness, basic self-defense training, willingness to ask others for assistance and company.
But self-defense training, alarms and weapons are useful only if you're already in a life-threatening situation which may have been avoidable, and everything we're told about "avoiding" may be inaccurate or useless against a determined attacker. At the same time, women shouldn't be held uniquely responsible for avoiding danger in ways that men aren't expected to, and men shouldn't be encouraged to treat danger casually or fear asking for help.
I count myself lucky that I've never had to contend with partner violence and rape personally. I have known one woman who was raped by her husband, became pregnant as a result, and needed my help to get away and get an abortion before filing for divorce. I don't have a good mental model of how her husband thought about the situation or if any amount of education could have prevented it. I was present for one violent outburst, and the "you're MINE!" theme was pretty prominent, as if he'd rather destroy her than let her be her own person.
However, I got involved in the same kind of domestic abuse situation that a lesbian friend was in, was actually attacked by her partner while helping her move out, wound up testifying in court for the protective order... so I can't say that this is a solely a problem with "men".
So, there you go. Anecdote is not data, but I'm seriously tired of discussions about rape and violence against women that turn into endless rounds of men chest-pounding about guns.
Thank you for writing this. When discussing these issues, especially with our male counterparts, I often get asked an analogy along the lines of - "Well if you walk down a dark alley waving a wad...
Yes, it's appropriate at a personal level to assess risks and take the steps anyone would ordinarily take to defend against the dangers other humans may pose - situational awareness, basic self-defense training, willingness to ask others for assistance and company.
But self-defense training, alarms and weapons are useful only if you're already in a life-threatening situation which may have been avoidable, and everything we're told about "avoiding" may be inaccurate or useless against a determined attacker. At the same time, women shouldn't be held uniquely responsible for avoiding danger in ways that men aren't expected to, and men shouldn't be encouraged to treat danger casually or fear asking for help.
Thank you for writing this. When discussing these issues, especially with our male counterparts, I often get asked an analogy along the lines of - "Well if you walk down a dark alley waving a wad of cash, aren't you're asking to be robbed?" But what I think you've summed up so well, is that the level of responsibility a woman takes for her own safety is unequal to the amount a man is ask of. Even in the analogy I used, that person is taking an action (waving cash), where we are often just living, and our "wad of cash" is existing.
If a man tries to rape a woman, he has a near 50% chance of success if she is unarmed. On the other hand, if she has a gun, that rate of success drops to under 0.1%. Australia needs to allow...
If a man tries to rape a woman, he has a near 50% chance of success if she is unarmed. On the other hand, if she has a gun, that rate of success drops to under 0.1%.
Australia needs to allow people to protect/arm themselves.
Just because Americans love guns, that doesn't mean you get to inflict your violent ideology on everyone else. How about... instead of teaching women how to become murderers... we teach men NOT TO...
Just because Americans love guns, that doesn't mean you get to inflict your violent ideology on everyone else.
How about... instead of teaching women how to become murderers... we teach men NOT TO BE FUCKING RAPISTS?
I think because the focus should always be on teaching men (and women too) that no means no. We've already seen so many instances of women in particular being criticized for "not fighting hard...
I think because the focus should always be on teaching men (and women too) that no means no. We've already seen so many instances of women in particular being criticized for "not fighting hard enough" or "wearing slutty clothing" or "drinking too much" that putting more emphasis on self-defense increases the onus on the women to stop herself from getting raped. I'm totally for women making the choice for themselves to learn self-defense if they want to, but to have the government encourage women to do it sends the wrong message, in my opinion. It does not get to the root of the problem and, if anything, promotes rape culture.
The Senate had been debating a motion that would "call on the government to encourage women to carry tasers, pepper spray and mace to defend themselves from murderers and rapists".
It is a men's problem, but it's women who suffer. A non-lethal purely self-defense option like pepper spray may have the effect of helping keep people safe while also not having toddlers...
It is a men's problem, but it's women who suffer. A non-lethal purely self-defense option like pepper spray may have the effect of helping keep people safe while also not having toddlers accidentally shooting people when someone forgets to lock up their murder-stick.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm pro-changing culture, but that takes time. I completely agree with education.
That's not where this thread started, though. Someone started this conversation by suggesting lethal force was the first response. And, as the Australian Senate rightly concluded, we should not...
That's not where this thread started, though. Someone started this conversation by suggesting lethal force was the first response.
And, as the Australian Senate rightly concluded, we should not tell women that it's their fault they get raped: "If you'd been carrying a weapon, this wouldn't have happened. It's your fault for not going about your daily business armed."
Yeah, the conversation has shifted a few times. Anyway, I completely agree. I don't want to live in a society where everyone has to be ready to kill at a moment's notice. That sounds like a...
Yeah, the conversation has shifted a few times.
Anyway, I completely agree. I don't want to live in a society where everyone has to be ready to kill at a moment's notice. That sounds like a dystopian nightmare, rather than 'freedom'
Nor is yours, quite bluntly. Arming women (and men) to defend themselves against rape will only lead to an arms race where rapists will arm themselves as well. Then we become America, where...
But your solution isn't realistic IMO.
Nor is yours, quite bluntly. Arming women (and men) to defend themselves against rape will only lead to an arms race where rapists will arm themselves as well. Then we become America, where everyone's armed and noone's safe.
You don't stop a disease just by treating its symptoms. You find the cause and you prevent it before it starts. Vaccinate rather than treat. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
We need to change the culture wherein most men talk about women as sex objects - which permits some men to feel entitled to use those sex objects for their pleasure. Rape doesn't come from nowhere. Rape culture is a real problem.
You jumped in to a thread which started when someone suggested that arming women was the solution to rape. It was easy to assume you were agreeing with that suggestion. Sorry. So what is your...
You jumped in to a thread which started when someone suggested that arming women was the solution to rape. It was easy to assume you were agreeing with that suggestion. Sorry.
So what is your suggested solution, if it's not arming women and not teaching men not to rape?
No one is saying women need to bear the responsibility for crimes against them. You are approaching this problem from the wrong angle. Why do people buy locks, security systems, guns, and other...
No one is saying women need to bear the responsibility for crimes against them. You are approaching this problem from the wrong angle.
Why do people buy locks, security systems, guns, and other means of defending their property? Obviously the perpetrator bears responsibility for the crime, but a smart person knows by pursuing the proper avenues they can reduce their odds of being subject to the crime.
You could take every man in the world and subject them to an anti-rape class, which notwithstanding the discriminatory and alienating consequences, (after all, if we're 'educating' people based on their statistical likeliness to rape, then the reasoning would follow that groups which rape the most would need the most 'educating' i.e. minorities) these classes wouldn't tell them anything they already know, or you could teach women to defend themselves, as men and women already have to do to protect against literally every other crime in existence.
If you want to reduce rape, you do so using the same methods you do to reduce other crimes. Enfranchising minorities, expanding education (including sex education for everyone that covers consent), providing people opportunities to better their lives, and vigorously prosecuting law breakers. There is no need to pursue discriminatory policies, because, like the stop-and-frisk debacle in New York, they inevitably have bad repercussions. Not only that, but focusing only on men would silence rape victims of women, which though a minority, are significant and deserve to be heard nonetheless.
Unless you can demonstrate to me how 1. any anti-rape education campaign directed towards men would be more successful than a 'don't steal cars' campaign in inner-city neighborhoods, and 2. Why the discriminatory consequences are acceptable here but not when used to justify racially-targeted policing / anti-crime education, I will continue to hold these beliefs.
Guns aren't violence. They reduce violence, as the study shows. Teach people not to be rapists all you want. Most men already aren't. But some people will always ignore the rules, and in any case,...
Guns aren't violence. They reduce violence, as the study shows.
Teach people not to be rapists all you want. Most men already aren't. But some people will always ignore the rules, and in any case, everyone has a right to defend themselves.
Strictly speaking, if I drove a tank around, no one would try to mug me. By that logic tanks must reduce violence, so let's give everyone a tank. Violence will plummet. Logic!
Strictly speaking, if I drove a tank around, no one would try to mug me. By that logic tanks must reduce violence, so let's give everyone a tank. Violence will plummet. Logic!
Some thoughts: Statistically, people are more likely to be raped by someone they know. "About 85 to 90 percent of sexual assaults reported by college women are perpetrated by someone known to the...
Some thoughts:
Statistically, people are more likely to be raped by someone they know. "About 85 to 90 percent of sexual assaults reported by college women are perpetrated by someone known to the victim; about half occur on a date" (source). More generally, "in 2010, 25% of the female victims of rape/sexual assault were victimized by strangers" (source).
Based on those numbers and some others I found, it seems that rapes by strangers only account for 10-30%. From the research you linked: "Our sample was limited to rape incidents involving offenders who were strangers to the victim." (They give reasons for this, but I don't know enough about this type of research to be able to tell if it's a reasonable decision.)
So we don't know if the decrease in success rate applies to the majority of rape cases. Maybe it does, but can you imagine how hard it would be to use a gun to defend yourself against your partner, friend, or coworker? Or how unsafe it would be for someone in an abusive relationship to keep a gun around that their partner could use on them? If a male abusive partner either owns a gun or lives in a house with one, the risk of him murdering his female partner increases five-fold (source).
A common tactic of rapists is to wait until someone is incapacitated or cause them to become incapacitated by either drugging them or getting them to drink more. I don't think that someone who is very drunk, drugged, unconscious, or asleep can safely use a gun to protect themselves (if they could even use one at all).
Personally, if I were ever to try to use a gun in self defense, I'd probably get shot. It doesn't matter how much training I get; I am significantly weaker than most attackers of any gender (because of health issues) and can easily imagine someone getting close and overpowering me before I can shoot them. So not only do I think that in many cases brandishing a gun to ward off a rapist is impractical, dangerous, or impossible, I resent the idea that it's supposed to be my main option for not getting raped.
Edit: trying to make my list more readable. Edit 2: fixing the links I broke, hopefully.
I'm seeing a lot of comments that mention teaching men not to be rapists. Can someone provide an idea of how that would be accomplished? How do we teach people not to be murderers or, for a less...
I'm seeing a lot of comments that mention teaching men not to be rapists. Can someone provide an idea of how that would be accomplished?
How do we teach people not to be murderers or, for a less extreme example, muggers not to be muggers? People know that bad acts are bad. This does not deter them, clearly.
Just my two-cents, but I think "teaching men not to rape" is very much a sound-bite meant to catch attention and is not at all what is actually being asking for, or truly discussed. Don't quote me...
Just my two-cents, but I think "teaching men not to rape" is very much a sound-bite meant to catch attention and is not at all what is actually being asking for, or truly discussed.
Don't quote me (because it was a long time ago and I'm not sure of the full details), but I believe the "teach men not to rape" is a direct response to "teach women not to be raped" (this was in Canada in the 90s, brought up often by police and security). This is a concept that's often referred to as "rape culture" and presents itself in many forms, specifically when a rape victim is asked:
what she was wearing
why she was out walking where she was
if she was drinking
did she fight back
could she have fought back harder
So when there's discussion about teaching/educating men (which I believe is a misnomer, as women also contribute to rape culture), they are talking about bringing awareness to rape culture topics, ranging from consent to victim blaming, as well as topics about masculinity (toxic and not). Teaching boys not to link their worth to their sexual experiences to masculinity are also topics that are often what is included in the "teach men to ..." topics.
That's a very good response. There's no course curriculum that will teach people not to be assholes. Lack of awareness is definitely a problem. I don't hear much about what rape victims can...
That's a very good response. There's no course curriculum that will teach people not to be assholes.
Lack of awareness is definitely a problem. I don't hear much about what rape victims can do/where they can go and how they can pursue prosecution against their assailant(s).
Yikes at whomever came up with "teach women not to be raped".
Ohhh puhh-leeease.
So should we go ahead and teach black people not to commit crimes too?
Excuse me?
It's an argument by analogy. Some men rape women, therefore the solution is to catch men as children and teach them not to rape. Some black people commit crimes, therefore the solution is to catch black people as children and teach them not to commit crimes. Both are wrong, because both assume group guilt. The individual male is made to feel as though they are inherently a rapist, and society must intervene to 'fix' him. Both also miss the point - black people don't commit crime because nobody thought to tell them otherwise as children any more than men rape people. There are enormous correlates to sex crime by overall level of education and income, and all the bits that go along with that sort of sociodemographic data like urbanisation, migrant status, etc.
The sort of people who rape aren't going to perk up in sex ed and think 'huh, I didn't know I shouldn't do that'. We teach people not to break the law, and rape is against the law - therefore we are teaching people not to rape. Just like we teach people not to steal cars - but people still lock their cars, buy alarms, buy insurance etc rather than saying 'we should teach people not to steal cars'. The whole premise is ridiculous, the cultural issues are hugely complex, and are more than capable of steamrolling any effort to treat symptoms.
While the ideas permeate a culture ie that men ask women out on dates rather than the other way around, that women should be 'chased', that women should make men chase them so they don't 'give it up too easy', that sex is a win for men and a shame for women (including virgin shaming and slut shaming) - the culture isn't going to give 2 shits if you come in with all that in place and say 'don't rape women' - the people who can live in a culture like that and not rape women... already don't rape women. The solution for the others is to change the culture, there's literally no other way it can be done, and any attempts at symptom treatment are a waste of effort at best, but probably making it worse.
When most people say "teach men not to rape", they mean "don't raise boys in a culture which normalises male dominance over women". You don't teach boys & men not to rape, you teach them to respect girls & women, which should naturally flow on to a reduced normalisation of rape, which should reduce the number of men who feel entitled to treat women as objects and possessions.
You also teach them a good understanding of enthusiastic consent.
I'm getting the feeling that not everyone is working off the same definition of rape in this conversation. It's not always a violent struggle. It's a lot more nuanced than that,
Read the article, and the examples in it: kidnapping, sexual assault, violent rape, murder. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Not just "date rape" or a misunderstanding about whether consent was given.
Considering your comment,
I would think that any sort of education would not be able to prevent kidnapping, violent rape, or murder. I actually think things like date rape, marital rape, and misunderstandings about consent are the prime targets for education to fix - things certain men don't recognize as rape. I'm not sure what you say to a murderer or violent rapist (at any point throughout their life) to prevent them from being what they are.
There is a big problem with rape culture that can education can fix (things like victim blaming, taking sexual assault reports seriously, etc). But viewing rape (or any violent crime) entirely as a cultural/societal problem is not going to lead to a whole solution (though maybe it's the only way to approach the problem).
You can remove the sense that it's okay to rape women. With lots of men talking trash about women, treating them as sex objects, and generally disrespecting them, this creates an atmosphere that women are just there for men's pleasure. Some rapists believe they have implicit support for their actions from this atmosphere. They think they're entitled to take a woman because that's what their mates talk about all the time.
It won't prevent all rapes. You're right about that. However, it will reduce the number of rapes.
They should probably say that if they want people to hear that, as opposed to saying some completely different thing and expecting people to read their minds.
To be fair, I believe they usually do, but it's the sound bites that get the headlines.
How are you defining culture in this situation? My general understanding of it is "the social behavior and norms found in human societies."
There was a fascinating example of a baboon troop that drastically shifted its social structure to be more peaceful after all the large, aggressive males died due to disease. This cultural shift persisted for 2 decades (as of the writing of this article and publication of the research); individuals maintained the more peaceful structure despite new males joining the group. This is an example of how long-held behaviors that we may initially think are purely biological are actually in part cultural.
And as for this just being how life/mammals/humans are, one of our closest relatives (the bonobo) has a female dominant social structure. So it's not a simple matter of looking to nature to explain our history of male dominance. (Of course, chimpanzees don't have matriarchal groups, which makes this a very interesting area of research; does the difference stem from environment, genes, the likely combination of both?)
But nobody suggested targeted education at all, only @safeword. The original comment was addressing people who hold a viewpoint on sex ed as it applies to men, and arguing against that viewpoint. @safeword read an argument against that viewpoint and apparently took it personally and ended up saying something remarkably stupid.
Nobody said sex education to teach consent and proper sex shouldn't be for everyone, equally. This situation is currently unfolding with the Ontario sex ed cirriculum if you read up on it. The sexual education is universal, for all children, and one of the chief goals is to give all children a proper understanding of consent, and the terminology and understanding to recognize sexual abuse. And yet there's a large, vocal movement of people who blatantly misrepresent it because they don't like the idea of sex ed at all.
And if a significant portion of rape cases can be solved by education, then that is already worthwhile. Just because there are still monsters out there doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
While I agree sex education is necessary for all people, @chrismc's parent comment clearly implies targeted education.
Yeah, I understand what an analogy is. Thanks.
I was pointing out @safeword saying essentially 'black people are criminals'
Black people (in the West, at least) commit more crimes per capita than any other race. Men commit more rapes per capita than any other gender. It is as wrong to say 'men are rapists' as it is to say 'black people are criminals', and the idea 'teach men not to rape' should be considered equally as offensive as 'teach black people not to commit crime'.
Both are wrong, for pretty much exactly the same reasons.
That's not what he said though. He didn't say that we shouldn't say 'teach black people not to commit crimes'. He said:
Are you really going be as disingenuous as you would have to be to claim you read 'Ohhh puhh-leeease' and didn't get the sarcasm?
Ohhh puhh-leeease.
If what he was saying wasn't a pretty standard alt-right talking point about 'race realism' I might agree with you.
I would say we already teach everyone not to commit crimes. In general though, we are poor at teaching consent.
I didn't really read the article as saying we should teach boys not to rape, as much as we need to address the underlying issues around rape.
Isn't something wrong when we try to tell a group of people to basically protect themselves and leaving it at that?
Oh your store has been robbed twice, have you though of getting a shotgun?
because white people don't commit crimes, just the black people? WTF
Report from a sample of one female, here. There is an ordinary onslaught of less overt daily misogyny: I've had to contend, over the years, with opportunistic predators in the workplace, as well as the routine inability to be solitary in public without someone assuming that I'm seeking male partnership. If you want to know what women's "locker room talk" consists of, this comprises an excessive share.
There are opportunities for men to be educated globally in better behavior, even without the possibility that the lessons might reduce rape and violence.
I once had to escape from a campus serial rapist who got an arm around my neck and tried to drag me into the bushes - I thought I was safe walking alone at night, as it was a well-lighted walkway and there were people nearby.
A randomly-taken women's self-defense class did "save" me; reflexively stomp, duck, run screaming... before the monster had a chance to tell me he had a knife, as it turned out he'd done to the other girls. Nonetheless, I was extraordinarily fortunate. There is no reason to expect that a woman who may be out-massed 2:1 by her male attacker, as I was, can defend herself reliably with or without weapons, especially from a practiced predator.
I now regularly work at night in potentially risky places - a badly-lit hospital parking lot is not a place where you want to be alone at 3 a.m. But when the guys asked if I carried anything special for defense, my answer was, "a security guard to escort me to my car".
I have to ask the question, why wouldn't a man feel comfortable asking for the same protection, under the same circumstances? Why would carrying a personal firearm or other weapon be a better solution?
Yes, it's appropriate at a personal level to assess risks and take the steps anyone would ordinarily take to defend against the dangers other humans may pose - situational awareness, basic self-defense training, willingness to ask others for assistance and company.
But self-defense training, alarms and weapons are useful only if you're already in a life-threatening situation which may have been avoidable, and everything we're told about "avoiding" may be inaccurate or useless against a determined attacker. At the same time, women shouldn't be held uniquely responsible for avoiding danger in ways that men aren't expected to, and men shouldn't be encouraged to treat danger casually or fear asking for help.
I count myself lucky that I've never had to contend with partner violence and rape personally. I have known one woman who was raped by her husband, became pregnant as a result, and needed my help to get away and get an abortion before filing for divorce. I don't have a good mental model of how her husband thought about the situation or if any amount of education could have prevented it. I was present for one violent outburst, and the "you're MINE!" theme was pretty prominent, as if he'd rather destroy her than let her be her own person.
However, I got involved in the same kind of domestic abuse situation that a lesbian friend was in, was actually attacked by her partner while helping her move out, wound up testifying in court for the protective order... so I can't say that this is a solely a problem with "men".
So, there you go. Anecdote is not data, but I'm seriously tired of discussions about rape and violence against women that turn into endless rounds of men chest-pounding about guns.
Thank you for writing this. When discussing these issues, especially with our male counterparts, I often get asked an analogy along the lines of - "Well if you walk down a dark alley waving a wad of cash, aren't you're asking to be robbed?" But what I think you've summed up so well, is that the level of responsibility a woman takes for her own safety is unequal to the amount a man is ask of. Even in the analogy I used, that person is taking an action (waving cash), where we are often just living, and our "wad of cash" is existing.
If a man tries to rape a woman, he has a near 50% chance of success if she is unarmed. On the other hand, if she has a gun, that rate of success drops to under 0.1%.
Australia needs to allow people to protect/arm themselves.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249985228_Rape_and_Resistance
Just because Americans love guns, that doesn't mean you get to inflict your violent ideology on everyone else.
How about... instead of teaching women how to become murderers... we teach men NOT TO BE FUCKING RAPISTS?
Why not both? Teaching women self defense and teaching men not to be rapists isn't mutually exclusive.
I think because the focus should always be on teaching men (and women too) that no means no. We've already seen so many instances of women in particular being criticized for "not fighting hard enough" or "wearing slutty clothing" or "drinking too much" that putting more emphasis on self-defense increases the onus on the women to stop herself from getting raped. I'm totally for women making the choice for themselves to learn self-defense if they want to, but to have the government encourage women to do it sends the wrong message, in my opinion. It does not get to the root of the problem and, if anything, promotes rape culture.
Exactly.
"Instead of stopping people from raping you, we're going to put the onus on you to prevent yourself from getting raped."
No. We will not import American violence into Australia. NO. FUCKING. WAY.
Doesn't have to be guns. As the article says:
The Senate voted against it. And good on 'em.
This is not a women's problem. It's a men's problem.
And YOU DO NOT REDUCE VIOLENCE WITH MORE WEAPONS.
It is a men's problem, but it's women who suffer. A non-lethal purely self-defense option like pepper spray may have the effect of helping keep people safe while also not having toddlers accidentally shooting people when someone forgets to lock up their murder-stick.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm pro-changing culture, but that takes time. I completely agree with education.
That's not where this thread started, though. Someone started this conversation by suggesting lethal force was the first response.
And, as the Australian Senate rightly concluded, we should not tell women that it's their fault they get raped: "If you'd been carrying a weapon, this wouldn't have happened. It's your fault for not going about your daily business armed."
Yeah, the conversation has shifted a few times.
Anyway, I completely agree. I don't want to live in a society where everyone has to be ready to kill at a moment's notice. That sounds like a dystopian nightmare, rather than 'freedom'
But those aren't nearly as effective as guns.
Let me rephrase, then.
Why should women have to bear the responsibility for other people's actions against them?
Nor is yours, quite bluntly. Arming women (and men) to defend themselves against rape will only lead to an arms race where rapists will arm themselves as well. Then we become America, where everyone's armed and noone's safe.
You don't stop a disease just by treating its symptoms. You find the cause and you prevent it before it starts. Vaccinate rather than treat. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
We need to change the culture wherein most men talk about women as sex objects - which permits some men to feel entitled to use those sex objects for their pleasure. Rape doesn't come from nowhere. Rape culture is a real problem.
You jumped in to a thread which started when someone suggested that arming women was the solution to rape. It was easy to assume you were agreeing with that suggestion. Sorry.
So what is your suggested solution, if it's not arming women and not teaching men not to rape?
No one is saying women need to bear the responsibility for crimes against them. You are approaching this problem from the wrong angle.
Why do people buy locks, security systems, guns, and other means of defending their property? Obviously the perpetrator bears responsibility for the crime, but a smart person knows by pursuing the proper avenues they can reduce their odds of being subject to the crime.
You could take every man in the world and subject them to an anti-rape class, which notwithstanding the discriminatory and alienating consequences, (after all, if we're 'educating' people based on their statistical likeliness to rape, then the reasoning would follow that groups which rape the most would need the most 'educating' i.e. minorities) these classes wouldn't tell them anything they already know, or you could teach women to defend themselves, as men and women already have to do to protect against literally every other crime in existence.
If you want to reduce rape, you do so using the same methods you do to reduce other crimes. Enfranchising minorities, expanding education (including sex education for everyone that covers consent), providing people opportunities to better their lives, and vigorously prosecuting law breakers. There is no need to pursue discriminatory policies, because, like the stop-and-frisk debacle in New York, they inevitably have bad repercussions. Not only that, but focusing only on men would silence rape victims of women, which though a minority, are significant and deserve to be heard nonetheless.
Unless you can demonstrate to me how 1. any anti-rape education campaign directed towards men would be more successful than a 'don't steal cars' campaign in inner-city neighborhoods, and 2. Why the discriminatory consequences are acceptable here but not when used to justify racially-targeted policing / anti-crime education, I will continue to hold these beliefs.
Guns aren't violence. They reduce violence, as the study shows.
Teach people not to be rapists all you want. Most men already aren't. But some people will always ignore the rules, and in any case, everyone has a right to defend themselves.
I have never read such utter rot. "A lethal weapon isn't violence."
Strictly speaking, if I drove a tank around, no one would try to mug me. By that logic tanks must reduce violence, so let's give everyone a tank. Violence will plummet. Logic!
You're ignoring the risk/reward trade-off. I agree guns also cause violence, but what about pepper spray or tasers? There are options.
Some thoughts:
Statistically, people are more likely to be raped by someone they know. "About 85 to 90 percent of sexual assaults reported by college women are perpetrated by someone known to the victim; about half occur on a date" (source). More generally, "in 2010, 25% of the female victims of rape/sexual assault were victimized by strangers" (source).
Based on those numbers and some others I found, it seems that rapes by strangers only account for 10-30%. From the research you linked: "Our sample was limited to rape incidents involving offenders who were strangers to the victim." (They give reasons for this, but I don't know enough about this type of research to be able to tell if it's a reasonable decision.)
So we don't know if the decrease in success rate applies to the majority of rape cases. Maybe it does, but can you imagine how hard it would be to use a gun to defend yourself against your partner, friend, or coworker? Or how unsafe it would be for someone in an abusive relationship to keep a gun around that their partner could use on them? If a male abusive partner either owns a gun or lives in a house with one, the risk of him murdering his female partner increases five-fold (source).
A common tactic of rapists is to wait until someone is incapacitated or cause them to become incapacitated by either drugging them or getting them to drink more. I don't think that someone who is very drunk, drugged, unconscious, or asleep can safely use a gun to protect themselves (if they could even use one at all).
Personally, if I were ever to try to use a gun in self defense, I'd probably get shot. It doesn't matter how much training I get; I am significantly weaker than most attackers of any gender (because of health issues) and can easily imagine someone getting close and overpowering me before I can shoot them. So not only do I think that in many cases brandishing a gun to ward off a rapist is impractical, dangerous, or impossible, I resent the idea that it's supposed to be my main option for not getting raped.
Edit: trying to make my list more readable. Edit 2: fixing the links I broke, hopefully.
I'm seeing a lot of comments that mention teaching men not to be rapists. Can someone provide an idea of how that would be accomplished?
How do we teach people not to be murderers or, for a less extreme example, muggers not to be muggers? People know that bad acts are bad. This does not deter them, clearly.
Just my two-cents, but I think "teaching men not to rape" is very much a sound-bite meant to catch attention and is not at all what is actually being asking for, or truly discussed.
Don't quote me (because it was a long time ago and I'm not sure of the full details), but I believe the "teach men not to rape" is a direct response to "teach women not to be raped" (this was in Canada in the 90s, brought up often by police and security). This is a concept that's often referred to as "rape culture" and presents itself in many forms, specifically when a rape victim is asked:
So when there's discussion about teaching/educating men (which I believe is a misnomer, as women also contribute to rape culture), they are talking about bringing awareness to rape culture topics, ranging from consent to victim blaming, as well as topics about masculinity (toxic and not). Teaching boys not to link their worth to their sexual experiences to masculinity are also topics that are often what is included in the "teach men to ..." topics.
That's a very good response. There's no course curriculum that will teach people not to be assholes.
Lack of awareness is definitely a problem. I don't hear much about what rape victims can do/where they can go and how they can pursue prosecution against their assailant(s).
Yikes at whomever came up with "teach women not to be raped".
If you read this whole thread, you'll stumble across this comment of mine which answers your question.
Ah smh, certainly a crown gem of Australian journalistic excellence!
Please spare me this drivel.
EDIT: Spelling.
It might not the best, but it's still miles ahead of the other big journalistic company here.
Too right! Still, won't pass up a chance to poke fun at smh though :)