Ken Jennings, go to hell, you son of a bitch

[Bicycle Bill]

She is saying that she has her own preferences for how she dresses and acts in public, and that she believes that all women have the right to develop their own, which may be different from hers. What is difficult to understand?

If anything, it's this idea of "do your own thing" — which you interpret as 'letting someone develop their own preferences'.  We've seen what happens when people decide their own preferences over such a simple thing as wearing a mask during a public health crisis... and it isn't pretty.  Taken to extremes, it becomes libertarianism at best, and anarchy at worst.

Let's take another example of someone developing their own preferences.  I used to live in a trailer park in a community on the west side of Wisconsin, along the Mississippi River.  If I wanted to get from Wisconsin to Minnesota on my bicycle, there were exactly three bridges (four if you count the Canadian Pacific railroad swing bridge, which I don't) across the river within a thirty mile radius, and one of those was on an Interstate highway — which have these nasty signs at all the on-ramps:



Now I personally think that after all my years of cycling I am proficient enough to be able to stay on the (eight-foot wide) paved shoulder, at least for the three or four miles it would take to cross from one state to the other.  So, in keeping with that "everybody develops their own preferences" thing, my preference is to ignore the sign, ride up the ramp, and head west (or east, as the case may be) rather than add another six miles one-way to get to the narrow, two-lane bridge and highway with no shoulder at all where I AM legally allowed to cross, but must ride on a sidewalk to do so — and according to you, that's OK.

And maybe it's because I believe that a certain amount of decorum is required in society.  Otherwise what's to stop someone from deciding that their preference includes setting up a bed in the yard and selling mattress rides, like kids used to set up Kool-aid stands?

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

Sure, because talking about how women comport themselves in public in reference to the risk of sexual assault means that she is advocating all out anarchy in all things.

Context is actually relevant, and stripping her comments of same just makes you look like an idiot.

[MajGenl.Meade]

BB you seem to have confused 'fashion choices' and 'the law'. I suggest voluntary committal to a Chinese Sports Rehab Camp.

Either that or an assault on Congress wearing a bison horn hat and nowt else

[Big RR]

As long as we're discussing confusion, I don't understand how this:

“I still make choices every day as a 41-year-old actress that I think of as self-protecting and wise,” ... I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.”

squares with this.

“How you dress has nothing to do with assault and power,”

She says she dresses modestly and doesn't behave flirtatiously for "self protection" (presumably from assault by men), but then says how one dresses has nothing to do with assault. It seems to me that she is doing some sort of victim blaming for people not as "wise" as her who are assaulted, but then makes a statement about dress to avoid criticism. It's not exactly saying "they got what they deserved", but "if they were more like me they could have protected themselves" and that's pretty close.

Again, IMHO, it's not a reason to disqualify her from hosting, but it's a pretty reprehensible position.

[MajGenl.Meade]

As long as we're discussing confusion, I don't understand how this:

“I still make choices every day as a 41-year-old actress that I think of as self-protecting and wise,” ... I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.”

squares with this.

“How you dress has nothing to do with assault and power,”

She says she dresses modestly and doesn't behave flirtatiously for "self protection" (presumably from assault by men), but then says how one dresses has nothing to do with assault. It seems to me that she is doing some sort of victim blaming for people not as "wise" as her who are assaulted, but then makes a statement about dress to avoid criticism. It's not exactly saying "they got what they deserved", but "if they were more like me they could have protected themselves" and that's pretty close.

Again, IMHO, it's not a reason to disqualify her from hosting, but it's a pretty reprehensible position.

I believe you are correct as to the second statement being a transparent effort to avoid being cancelled, pilloried and excoriated by the self-made censors of sensibility.

Is it "victim blaming" to suggest that people returning to their burglarized and vandalized home should have cancelled their newspapers, closed the windows and locked the doors before they departed for their three month vacation in Florida? Is it "victim blaming" when parents warn children not to get into cars with strangers? Is it "victim blaming" to put signs up in zoos warning patrons not to stand close to the tiger's cage? . . . well, there are many scenarios.

In all cases, the victim is not guilty of a crime - rightly so. In all cases, the perpetrator of the criminal act is fully responsible - rightly so. But is it not permissible to suggest that choices and actions lead to rationally predictable consequences and that better choices could be made in the first place to avoid an unwanted outcome?

In an ideal world, perhaps we could make choices without risking harm. Fact is, for women some choices are on a spectrum between naked and wearing a hijab. It's not relevant that it 'shouldn't be like that' - it just is. No one is "asking for it" by the way they dress - it isn't the "why" of a crime. But it so often is a precursor.

And those who speak this truth properly should not be shouted down by those who willfully misunderstand the point. (And blame the point-maker, eh?)

[BoSoxGal]

So how do we explain the elderly women in housecoats who get raped? How do we explain the grade school and middle school girls who don’t even have breasts to speak of and get raped? How do we explain the heavily pregnant women in maternity clothes who get raped? The plain looking women in overalls, jeans, sweatshirts? The women asleep in bed under multiple layers of blankets?

I wonder if rape has anything at all to do with a profound sickness in the male psyche?

What kind of world could this be if ALL men took responsibility for this, held rapists to account and called out misogyny whenever wherever they saw it?






No, of course bitches just need to dress and act ‘better.’

[datsunaholic]

So how do we explain the elderly women in housecoats who get raped? How do we explain the grade school and middle school girls who don’t even have breasts to speak of and get raped? How do we explain the heavily pregnant women in maternity clothes who get raped? The plain looking women in overalls, jeans, sweatshirts? The women asleep in bed under multiple layers of blankets?

I wonder if rape has anything at all to do with a profound sickness in the male psyche?

What kind of world could this be if ALL men took responsibility for this, held rapists to account and called out misogyny whenever wherever they saw it?






No, of course bitches just need to dress and act ‘better.’

How do we explain those? Those are cases of opportunity - crimes of convenience. You know what those rapists do when there are no women available? They rape other men. At least the ones that know they can overpower. I'm not sure how much education is going to help with people that twisted.

[MajGenl.Meade]

And those who speak this truth properly should not be shouted down by those who willfully misunderstand the point. (And blame the point-maker, eh?)

The subject of discussion was not "why do men rape?" It was: does human behavior in some circumstances increase the risk of becoming a victim of crime? Since the obvious answer is "yes", why should Ms. Bialik be faulted for stating the obvious?

That she felt the need to eviscerate her statement about her own behavior may be "reprehensible". It is certainly yet another indicator that intolerance is a one-way street.


FWIW I can't explain disgusting behaviors by some men other than to assume they are very sick individuals who should be locked away forever + a day. And the sin thing, of course

[Big RR]

So women dress a bit provocatively and they attract the attention of rapists? Please. You honestly believe that? Most studies say the opposite. It's nice to think that "if I just dress a bit dowdy and don't draw attention to myself I am safe(r)", but the evidence doesn't bear that out. I'm pretty sure Bialik wouldn't say a rape victim that didn't follow her advice "got what she deserved", but more "what does she expect?". And, like it or not, that is victim blaming.

Can "human behavior in some circumstances increase the risk of becoming a victim of crime"? I would think the answer is yes. But dressing nicely or acting animatedly does not increase a woman's chances of getting raped, armchair psychologists aside. Unless you really think that the dress just drives men mad so that they cannot control themselves.

Again, she's entitled to her opinion, but it is misinformed and deserved to be criticized.

[BoSoxGal]

It seems clear to me that the only guarantee of not being victimized by a man via rape or some other violence is to slit one’s own throat and stop breathing. That is the sad reality for women and always and ever has been.

Bialik can fool herself into thinking she’s achieved some kind of safety by dressing modestly and not flirting with anyone but her husband, and I’ll still be willing to hold her hand while she endures a rape kit examination or seeks shelter and assistance when her loving husband becomes her abuser - I won’t judge her for her hubris and ignorance.

This whole conversation makes me want to vomit.

[MajGenl.Meade]

In one sense, BSG's earlier remark was closer than yours BigRR. IMO. "So women dress a bit provocatively and they attract the attention of rapist?" is an extremely dense false statement of any argument given here.

Women dress 'provocatively' is your expression, not mine. Provoking whom, in your opinion? To "attract the attention" of whom and to what end? These are your choices of words - explain, sir if you dare!

No woman dresses to attract rapists. I think they might sometimes kinda do what you assert (if they do) to attract a man, generally speaking, even in these days of fluidity. And BSG suggests that perhaps all men are, at heart, rapists - whether as a result of psychosis or natural bent.

Why not answer the question?

If a person leaves her house for an extended vacation with doors and windows wide open, is such disregard of safety an element that contributes to the risk of burglary/theft? Or is it "victim blaming" to suggest such a thing?

I know you don't want to go for option (a)

[Big RR]

Provocatively is an adverb which is commonly used to suggest a certain manner of dress, a manner which I think you understand (as< i am certain, do most here) . It is not necessary (or even reasonable to presume) that the woman dresses that way to provoke any reaction whatsoever. Just as men can, women can dress in whatever manner they choose, and it is ridiculous to conclude that the woman chooses to dress that way to provoke any reaction in anyone else, woman or man. Perhaps you are right and it is an unfortunate term to use, but the word means what it connotes in modern parlance; assuming any ulterior motive in a woman's manner of dress is silly at best, and outright sexism at worst. And, in any event, it is not a reason to blame them if they become the victim of some depraved asshole. Does that answer your question?

As for your (I do not see that BSG said this anywhere) assertion that all men are (at heart) rapists, I similarly reject that as ridiculous--some are, most are not.

As for someone leaving his windows and doors open when away, does it contribute to burglary/theft, I honestly don't know. I live in a town where people routinely leave their doors unlocked even all night; it makes no sense to blame them for that if they are burglarized, even as it is not appropriate to blame them for leaving their houses (locked or unlocked) empty while they are working, or not having a handy weapon to repel home invaders. The victims are not the cause of the crime.

But, back to rape, it is a crime that is very different than most others. Most experts agree that rape is a crime of violence, not sexual attraction, and anyone can be raped no matter how they are dressed or how they act. To try and bring in a sexual attraction element only serves to say "the guy couldn't help himself when he saw how the woman was dressed or how she acted", something that is complete bullshit. Does that answer your question?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I would say "no" and "no".

Provocative has a precise meaning, gloss it as you will. It means precisely something that "provokes". It is (in dress and action of women) associated with sexuality. In men, it is more likely to be found in behavior intended to annoy others and even call forth violence. You used the word, not I.

Your "people leaving their doors open during the day" is laughably desperate as a red herring. You know full well what is meant and yet choose to be obtuse. Please try again dealing with the actual question and circumstance given:

If a person leaves her house for an extended vacation with doors and windows wide open, is such disregard of safety an element that contributes to the risk of burglary/theft? Or is it "victim blaming" to suggest such a thing?

I expect you will not, or at least not honestly.

As to your red herring, I have twice stated that leaving the door unlocked is not the cause of burglary. I have nowhere stated that women have not the same right as I to dress as they choose. It would be foolishness to assert such a thing.

BSG wrote: "I wonder if rape has anything at all to do with a profound sickness in the male psyche?" which I take to be referring to all men, to one degree or another.

[Big RR]

Well Meade--you have y response--accept or reject it as you choose--you will get no other. If you choose to ignore the experts and maintain the way a woman dresses is a factor in rape, nothing I can say further will change your opinion, or the facts.

As for what BSG wrote, I do not read it that way, but she can speak for herself.

[BoSoxGal]

I think rape exists in the context of patriarchy and so long as patriarchy exists rape will exist and all men who benefit from and perpetuate patriarchy are on the hook. So, in fact, are all the women. Women are raising these men, too. There are no absolutes in life and clearly women are complicit in this system - just last week I read of a horror case in India where a young woman was gang raped and beaten by a huge crowd of people and many women were involved in the violence, egging it on and instead of spiriting her to safety, pushing her back into the fray. Yes internalized misogyny et al., but we have a responsibility to refuse to participate. In more progressive cultures like ours there are a great many women who teach their daughters to be weak and submissive and place expectations for homemaking responsibilities on them while letting their sons live by the ‘boys will be boys’ code of conduct and teaching them to be entitled and many other negative things. I am not talking just about backward redneck people, plenty of very so-called progressive parents continue to perpetuate these stereotypes in their kids.

As to that whole ‘rape is violence, power and control and not about sex,’; yes I learned that in women’s studies too, and to some degree in many hours of victim advocacy trainings. BUT, there is a spectrum of rape and some of it is very much about sex - and about men who want sex and don’t want any of the work that goes into getting it fairly and ethically. I’m not sure all those date rapists and boyfriend rapists and husband rapists are the same at the pathological type that hunts women in their homes and alleys etc. Like everything else in life, there are no absolutes in that realm.

I’d have more to say but I just picked up my Thai takeaway so have more pressing obligations.

[datsunaholic]

OK, I thought about this a bit and have another line of thought.

How about harassment? I know several women who dress "conservatively" simply to avoid harassment. Things like catcalls, or even other women criticizing them.

Yes, you should teach your sons to be respectful. But on the other hand you can't expect that other people have done the same. Women are going to be objectified- you can't eliminate that any more than you can eliminate any other amoral behavior. I mean, society hasn't ever eliminated ANY behaviors, whether by making it illegal or even with "cancel culture". It still happens. Hell, I know objectifying women is wrong and I STILL do it. I catch myself doing it and have to run through my own personal "shut down" sequence of "don't say anything, don't stare, keep it professional". It is not easy- I work nights and often have to be downtown where the nightclubs are getting out at 1AM. It is really hard NOT to notice the 20-somethings in their short tight party dresses, even when I'm just trying to keep them (and the drunk guys) from stumbling into the path of my tow truck. These women are dressed like that to get noticed, but that does mean they get noticed by the men they are NOT trying to attract, whether that be the fat 47 year old tow truck driver or the junkie on the corner. In a crowd of partygoers, when lots of women are dressed to impress is one thing. Walking dressed like that up Hwy 99 is going to get a lot of unwanted attention.

Take, for instance, legal sex workers. Whether it's "exotic dancers" or bikini baristas. They take precautions, and they don't just walk alone out to their car at the end of the shift dressed like they would on the job. The strippers are almost always escorted to their cars by the bouncer- and are dressed in sweats or bulky clothes. The baristas are usually armed- I know 3 women that have done (or still do) the bikini barista thing and all 3 of them have CCW permits and carry. Because they KNOW their line of work is risky. Or even non-sex professions. Bartenders and waitresses know that they'll get bigger tips if they show more skin... but along with that comes a LOT of unwanted attention. The bartenders at least might have a bouncer around to make sure the drunks stay in line, but you don't have that on the street. So to avoid that unwanted harassment, one takes precautions. Whether that's by avoiding being where harassment could occur, or by dressing in a way that doesn't draw attention to one's self.

It's not foolproof- again, some men are looking for an opportunity and how a woman dresses isn't gonna matter one bit if someone has evil intentions on the mind. I can only control my own actions. I cannot assume others will do the same, or follow any sort of moral compass. Hell, I assume everyone out there is a predator until proven otherwise- trust no one. Of course I also have no social life because of it, but that's the choice I made.


It it wrong for me to think in this manner? I don't know. This is simply my own observation based on my own experiences and the experiences others have told me about.

[Joe Guy]

.... Is it wrong for me to think in this manner? I don't know. This is simply my own observation based on my own experiences and the experiences others have told me about.

I agree with all you wrote.

A woman who dresses to show off her body is going to be noticed and is very likely to be treated differently by most men (and by people who are rapists) than a woman who is dressed conservatively. It's not rocket science.

“How you dress has nothing to do with assault and power,” Bialik said.

I don't know what she means by that.

[BoSoxGal]

Just checking in again now that I’m full of pad Thai bankok rolls and crab Rangoon YUMMY!

Yes datsun all of that is spot on. In my perfect world it wouldn’t be, but it is absolutely the world we live in. Not only are women objectified sexually, in our culture we have this particularly perverse obsession with glorifying violence against them. You can’t say fuck on television or show titties or vaginas or penises full on, but we have thousands of hours of television available every week that depict the violent rape and murder of women - an entire true crime industry and dramatized crime industry that churns out horrible sadistic violent imagery of women denigrated despoiled and dismembered - for entertainment.

I also expect everyone is a predator. I’m sad that I learned to be this way, but having seen what I’ve seen as a former criminal attorney AND family law attorney, I just know that monsters lurk behind the masks of many of the most upstanding citizens in every burg in the land, nevermind the people who look on the surface like they might be messed up - some of them are too, but more likely in my experience they’ve been victims and their outward appearance is a manifestation of inward torment.

But anyway yeah, I don’t trust anyone anymore, really. I trust only those few people that have proved over nearly a lifetime of friendship to be trustworthy. All others are doubted and nothing is expected of them. I’m always happy to be pleasantly surprised, and I continue to be a giving and loving and compassionate person myself - but I just expect to be fucked over because that’s much less painful than having dashed expectations. And even in my middle aged spread and invisibility, I never forget that there are monsters out there who would rape me even if I was an 85 year old great grandmother, so I take no rides from strangers.

I only took rides from the tow truck drivers the last two times my relic RAV broke down because my dog was with me and rode along too. She wasn’t very scary looking but I have some confidence that a dog will dissuade all but the most pathological attacker, and some hope that AAA puts some reasonable thought into who they send out to assist women stranded roadside. Even still, I grabbed the little bat I carry in my car for self defense and kept it with me the whole way home - just in case.

[MajGenl.Meade]

To me, all of the foregoing is helpful.

Dats:

It it wrong for me to think in this manner?

No. I believe it is not wrong.

When Big RR speaks of women dressing provocatively (but then denies the word means anything) he suggested that actions are taken with responses in view. To provoke is to purposely ask for SOMETHING - notice, attention, something. BUT it is NOT to ask for RAPE. It isn't even necessarily to ask for sex. But it is done to attract something.

Unfortunately in many social situations, the attention attracted is the wrong kind and in our context that does not mean a grungy psychotic rapist (though it could) but some otherwise 'normal' bloke with too little moral decisiveness, too much alcohol, too much stupidity, too much ego, too much . . . whatever . . . that things get 'out of control'. Of course it shouldn't happen. But BSG is right about sexualization of women in the media. GOT is a prime example.

I want to be very clear. In no case of sexual assault/rape is the victim "to blame" - there is only one (uh) criminal, fully and completely responsible for his own actions. There's no excuse.

Big RR does have an inadvertent point: there's a world of difference between leaving a rural door unlocked while popping out to the shops and leaving a house insecure while going away for a month-long vacation. If burglary occurs, in neither case is the householder to "blame" - but circumstances have bearing. It is all to do with risk assessment.

Why is this so difficult to admit?

[Bicycle Bill]

I'm no psychologist, BSG, nor do I pretend to be one, but I don't think one needs to be a shrink to realize that living with the attitude that "everyone is out to fuck me over in one form or another" is a pretty miserable way to exist.

-"BB"-