From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Critisizing the victim?
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:56:25 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <BszC2F.5LI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, seiffe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Erica Seiffert) writes:
> In article <1992Aug14.004044.9419@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>This will be long, as I have been requested nto to edit to save on bandwith.
>>
>>In article <Bsy4EA.1q7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, seiffe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Erica Seiffert) writes:
>>> In article <1992Aug13.001749.9381@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>>>In article <Bsvp63.Eq3@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, seiffe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Erica Seiffert) writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	DC,
>>>>> 	
>>>>> 		I understand your position, however I am trying to point
>>>>> 	out that it is practically impossible for a woman in this socieity
>>>>> 	to avoid a "high risk" situation. ANY situation where in she is
>>>>> 	alone with a man (generally speaking...) can be a "high risk"
>>>>> 	situation for that woman. The point is that the "way the world
>>>>> 	is" a woman can be sexually assulted by her husband, her brother,
>>>>> 	her clegyman, her doctor, her teacher, her boss..etc.  
> 
> **>>>> 		A woman has to learn to appraise every situation and every
> **>>>> 	person. DC do you ever worry that your placing yourself at risk 
> **>>>> 	when you talk with a Professor alone? Do you ever wonder if you
> **>>>> 	shouldn't have some one with you when the maintenance man comes
> **>>>> 	by to fix something? Do you ever set up a little emergency code with
> **>>>> 	your friends before going out on a first date?
> 			
> 			(DC, these are the questions I have asked you
> 			that you have not answered.  I even addressed
> 			you specifically. READ the above paragraph.)

Sorry, I thought the above paragraph was rhetorical questions. Of COURSE I do
not. As you already knew the answers, how could these be anything other than
rhetorical? And, rehtorical questions are not asked to invite and answer, which
is why I did not.

> 
> 
>>> 		DC
>>> 
>>> 		I wish you had quoted my entire passage before posting your
>>> 		response. However, I will try and restate what I said once
>>> 		before to see if it makes anymore sense to you.
>>> 		
>>> 		If it is a given that in any situation, any person can be
>>> 		a possible assaulter, than a woman (men do this to, I'm
>>> 		not sure if it is to the same degree because I've never 
>>> 		experienced life as a man in this society) must appraise
>>> 		each situation and person in order to decide who/what is
>>> 		"safe." A woman may label some one as safe, and they may
>>> 		not be a threat to her for 20 years, but maybe one night, or
>>> 		one day that person suddenly acts contrary to all that that
>>> 		woman has judged and then rapes her. That woman's body has
>>> 		not only been violated, but her ability to trust her 
>>> 		judgement has also been damaged (generally speaking, no
>>> 		offense is meant to any surviors out there). The same thing
>>> 		goes for any situation that a woman has always decided to be
>>> 		safe and then one day it isn't.
>>> 
>>> 		If you want to shock young females into being aware of the
>>> 		dangers,DC, then start advocating that they view EVERY 
>>> 		situation, not just the bars or the frat parties, but study
>>> 		groups, church socials, parades..etc. as a possible 
>>> 		threat and that every person, be it their doctor, teacher,
>>> 		boss, child-hood playmate, ANY person can be an assaulter.
>>
>>Right. I agree with this.
> 			
> 			Well that's a start.

Start? I have been saying words to this effect for quite some time now.

>>
>>> 		
>>> 		Therefore, they'll either have to live isolated behind doors
>>> 		or make decisions on what situations and which persons to
>>> 		trust. If they get raped or assaulted, then they weren't
>>> 		being stupid: the situation or person weren't as safe as they
>>> 		had thought. I don't blame it on the victims, because quite 
>>> 		frankly NO ONE should have to spend time worrying if they are 
>>> 		putting	themselves at risk the minute they are with another
>>> 		person or walk out the front door. 
>>
>>No, no one should have to. However, based upon your knowledge, are some
>>situations more likely to result in an assault than others? (You can drown in
>>six inches of water, but no one ever worries about drowning in a wading pool
>>because the odds are not as high as diving off of a high-dive alone.) I fal
>>situations are equally as likely to result in an attack, then there is no
>>reason to re-inforce the message, as there is no message other than "Always be
>>on guard."
>>
>>If, however, a person is more likely to be raped alone in a dorm room with some
>>drunken lacross player she met last week than if she is with other friends in
>>the commmon areas of the floor, then she should be told that she is entering a
>>situation where she ay be at higher risk.
> 
> 		She is just as likely to be raped by her friends in the
> 		common room. Just because a study says it doesn't happen
> 		as often, doesn't mean it CAN'T or WON'T happen.

Wrong. You are equating 'may happen' with 'just as likely to happen.' I might
die in a car wreck today. I also might die by a plane falling on me. However,
the odds of the former are quite a bit higher than the latter.

She is NOT as likely to be raped by her friends in the common room as she is
by a single male in his room while he is drunk. IF you have done counseling, I
am surprised you have said that. If 95 percent of all rapes happen in
low-traffic areas (and, not many rapists pick the entrance to a well-lit highly
travlled building), then she is 20 times as likely to be raped in the room with
the door locked than in the common areas next to the drinking fountain,
elevators, rest rooms, and public T.V.

I find it diffucult to believe you have stated she is "just as likely to be
raped by her friends in the common room."

>>
>>> 
>>> 		You keep saying you didn't call any rape survior stupid 
>>> 		for being in a situation where they got raped. However, the
>>> 		word itself, and particularly how you have used it has implied,
>>> 		either directly or indirectly (consciously or unconsciously),
>>> 		that very same idea(IMHO); that they were stupid..
>>> 
>>> 		Let me ask you something (I'm still waiting for you to 
>>> 		answer honestly my previous questions) 
>>
>>Please don't start an Ataylor routine here. I do not believe I have failed to
>>answer ANYONE's direct questions to me. If I have, tell me the date of the post
>>and the title and I'll go back and re-read it.
> 				
> 			The questions are in this response. READ the statement
> 			in paranthesis up above. And please don't use 
> 			statements like "an Ataylor routine" when discussing
> 			something with me. One, that phrase has negative 
> 			connotation against Ms. Taylor that I don't appreciate
> 			and two, unless you are bringing in point from her
> 			postings that applies to this discussion than it isn't
> 			necessary to mention her.

I apologize to you. However, Ataylor has earned my disrespect for the reasons
pointed out in another thread.

>>
>>And, leave out the qualifier 'honestly'. That is all you get from me.
>>
>>							if for the past
>>> 		10 years you lived just outside a quiet little town and every
>>> 		day of those past 10 years you left your car unlocked, then
>>> 		one day it gets stolen, were you stupid? I wouldn't think so.
>>
>>Nope. But, if I lived in downtown Detroit where cars are stolen every night,
>>it might be kind of, for lack of a better word, stupid for me to leave it
>>unlocked overnight. True, locking it up might not prevent the theft, but why
>>make it easier for them. (Amazing how this whole analogy can be applied to rape
>>situations.)
> 			Really? What is that women should be "locking up?
> 		Surely you are not advocating that we should all be wearing
> 		chastity belts with the keys left at home in a cupboard?

Congrats on winning the Flip Statement Award. Re-read my posts if you want an
explination of what I said there.

No, some people object to me suggesting a re-read, so I will spell it out 
clearly:

Just as people lock-up their valuables in high-crime areas, so as to not make 
them easy to steal, a man, or woman in a high-risk situation should alter their
actions, if possible, so as is at lessen their risk of being attacked.

There. Simple enough?

>>
>>> 		Some where in the course of living where you did, you appraised
>>> 		that it was fairly safe to leave your car unlocked, and then
>>> 		one day, some one came along and VIOLATED that safety. 
>>
>>Right. And based upon the information you presented in your hypo, it may have
>>been reasonable to leave the car unlocked. I have lived far enough out in the
>>country where this was the norm.
>>
>>However, where I have also lived, and live now, car alarms and The Club are
>>more common than unlocked cars were where I used to live. Just because it was
>>safe there does not mean it is safe where I now live. And, to say that I had
>>the same rights in both places is to stick my head in the sand and avoid
>>reality--yes I had the same rights in both places, but that fact is irrelevant.
>>
> 			And just because you did live in a situation wherein
> 		you thought you could leave your car unlocked does not really
> 		make it any less likely that your car will be stolen. You just
> 		deemed based on all the information you gathered that it was.

Wrong once more. Why do you think insurance companies base your
comprehensive--especially theft insurance--based upon where you live? It
is because you are less likely to have your car broken into out on the
farm in the middle of Nebraska than in NYC. Why do you think New Yorkers
do not replace their car stereos when they are stolen? Why do you think
that they put signs on their windows saying "No radio in car"? Do you really
believe that it is because they, as a collective whole, "percieve" that their
cars are more likely to be broken into?

Just some myth they all subscribe to?

Or, is it because they are FAR more likely to have their cars broken into there
than in Blue Lick, Ohio?

As for me not locking my car based upon the data I had gathered--exactly what I
have been saying. A wise person will modify their behavior to lessen their odds
of being a victim as the odds go up. 

Why do you think police like to publish stats on crime? Why do you think they
tour and give lectures on how not to be a victim? It is because they want to
educate people into modifying their behaviour.

If they took the approach you are advocating above, they would come to the
lecture and say:

"You may be a victim at any place and at any time. Therefore, do what you want
and give us a call when it happens."

Funny, none of the crime-awareness lectures I have heard has EVER taken this
approach.

> 
>>Yes, a woman can be attacked anywhere. But that statement does not nullify the
>>fact that she is more likely to be attacked in a frat house or dorm room than
>>walking to her car.
>>
>>Did you read the studies I posted? 98% of all on-campus rapes are done by jocks
>>and greeks. Ninety-eight percent! (Please do not assume I am attacking
>>either group, I am merely relying information.) These attacks do not happen
>>walking to parking garages, or in the bushes near the physics building. They
>>happen in dorm rooms and frat houses.
>>
>>And if she is more likely to be attacked there, she should be more on guard
>>there.
>>
>>That does not nullify her need to always be on guard, it merely states she had
>>beeter be on additional guard when walking through the Valley, because unless
>>He is with her, she is very alone.
> 
> 			Who is he (with a capital h) in the above statement?
> 		God?  Are you referring to,
> 				"Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the
> 				shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou
> 				art with me, thy rod and they staff comfort 
> 				me."
> 		Not every woman is religious and even Nuns are raped.
> 			(Note this is not an attack on religion.)
> 		Further more, not every woman believes in a male deity. 

Congratulations on placing the refernce. Now, let's see if we can't just
correct the meaning of why it was used here. It was not to mean that nuns and
devout women do not get raped. It was a way of pointing out that a woman should 
try to avoid situations which move into the 'likely victim' category, as if an
attack occurs, the only people liekly to be there are her, her attacker, and
God--who hasn't made a personal appearance in about 2,000 years. (Except, of
course, for cameo appearances on grain silos and gas station walls.)

As for not every woman believing in a male deity--what is your point? My post
was not politically correct? You could not discern who I was talking about
because I used the traditional "He" as opposed to the much more fashionable
"They"? (Tell me, if someone form Egypt were to say "Allah be with us" would
you point out that the majority of people in America do not beileve in Allah,
but believe in God? Or, would you understand wht the Egyptian was saying, and
not bring it up?) 

>>
>>> 
>>> 		Perhaps you'll never get the point I'm making, and pehaps
>>> 		you don't even care. I don't know, I don't know you. However,
>>> 		hopefully I can get it across to someone who needs to hear it.
>>
>>I understand fully what you are saying. And it is based upon the principle
>>that women are always at risk, so when they are attacked, it is just something
>>that happens.
>>
>>I try to add that if the situation is high-risk, use your head and get out of
>>there--now.
>>
>>Do yo agrre that some situations are more high-risk than others?
>>
> 	NO, I believe that EVERY situation is a high-risk situation.

Then you believe what is not true.

Is a woman at high-risk of being raped while she is addressing the Republican
National Convention while the images is being braodcast to the world?

Is she at high risk while she is in the middle of an audience at a large
rape-wareness seminar hosted by NOW?

Should I waste bandwith by spelling out hundreds of situations which any
rational person would say are not high-risk?

> 
>>Do you also agree it would be a smart thing to do to avoid the high-risk
>>situations?
>>
> 
> 	I believe that one must evaluate each situation and determine if
> 	it is one wherein one feels that they can "trust" it. If part of 
> 	that evaluation includes statistics on rape in frat houses, fine.
> 	If that evaluation involves an account of a woman being raped by
> 	her dentist, fine. EVERY situation must be approached as a high
> 	risk situation and then the elements appraised; weighed and 
> 	balanced before deciding whether to trust that situation.

Thank you. This is what I have been (basiclly) saying since my first post on 
the thread. (However, instead of saying one should start with a perception that
all situations are high-risk, I would place all situations in a neutral
category, and as 'danger elements' enter the picture, the situation moves into
high risk. BUT, this may be because I am a male and tend to look at life
differently. If a woman wishes to view everything as high-risk, and then drop
it down into 'safe' as elements are removed, or bump it up into 'higher-rsik'
as elements enter, the end result is pretty much the same.)


> 		
>>If you answered yes to both of those, you agree with what I have been saying,
>>as that is basically ALL I have been saying.
>>
>>> 		
>>> 		If nothing else, DC, I ask that when talking about rape don't
>>> 		use the word stupid in association to anything other than
>>> 		the rapists. Than perhaps some of us wouldn't get so upset.
>>> 		Supposedly you are going to be a lawyer someday, therefore
>>> 		for your sake I hope you learn that certain words carry certain
>>> 		emotional connotations and they way you use them can have an
>>> 		emotional impact that may be quite contrary to what you had
>>> 		intended. In other words, it's probably not a good idea to
>>> 		wave a red flag in front of a bull, if all you want to do
>>> 		is get his attention.
>>
>>The reason why the matador waves the red flag is so the bull will charge, thus
>>exposing its vulnerable back and shoulders as it charges by...
> 		
> 		So then I am to deduce that you are here in order to get
> 		a "charge" out of us rather than to learn or to educate?

Close, but not right. More like when someone is already charging, it is prudent
to waive a red cape in front of them so that they expose the vulnerable parts
of their reasoning.

Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: handguns (?)