How to Cripple Healthcare »« A Voice for Me – A Firestorm of Helmet Bunnies, Sluts and Rape

I Get Mail – Clarifications and a Response to Kacyray

This one’s a comment by Kacyray that needs some addressing.

Avicenna, on your last post about this you stated your thesis – that “we don’t tell women not to take precautions. We specifically tell them to take precautions and to be worried.”

I posted a comment in which I specifically cited examples to the contrary. I also cited examples where those statements were supported and endorsed by FTBers.

No what you did was quote mine statements out of context and indeed post an article called Extraordinary Nonsense.

Where it says “Women do not have any responsibility to avoid rape” which is true. Except it doesn’t mean women shouldn’t take precautions. It just means that even if you do not take the precautions the rape is not your fault.

There is a difference between precautions and responsibility. Responsibility means that women don’t have any hard and fast rule where it’s their duty to avoid rape. It’s your responsibility to feed your pet dog, if you do not the blame of not feeding the dog goes on you. Women are not responsible for avoiding rape in the same way that murder victims are not responsible for avoiding murder.

At no point does Susan in her article say “That means no safety precautions”. That means go out solo and pass out drunk in strange places. No at every single point that means that IF… IF you go out solo and get raped, if you are wearing something saucy and get raped, if you are wearing a Burkha and get raped, if you didn’t have the body language of a strong and confident woman and got raped that it is not your fault.

I repeat, if a woman is lying stark naked on the road with a sign that says “fuck me” over her head and you as a man are incapable of not fucking her then I hang your head in shame. My dog won’t eat it’s food without the command even if it is hungry. I can balance a juicy piece of fried chicken on it’s nose and it won’t move unless I say “Eat”.

My dog has better control than the men you claim to represent. We men are better than this slavering beast. Now here is the difference. We recommend women take precautions. This doesn’t mean dress “appropriately” because we know clothes don’t affect rape as much as people think. We tell them to take precautions on dates. We try and make it easier for them to get help, we try and give them spaces to go if they feel threatened.

We need to give this to men and the MRA movement could be a force for that but unfortunately here it is trying to go “AHA! YOU ARE A RAPE APOLOGIST! WOOP WOOP WOOP!”

Perhaps you did not see the comment, but central to it was an important question: Are you prepared to repudiate the person who made these statements as well as any endorsements of those statements? (The comment was responded to a couple times by other commenters, but not one of them addressed the central question.)

What person? What statement? That Responsibility and Precautions are different? Sure, whatever floats your boat. I know that not all precautions are possible. The precautions aren’t universally possible. Think of them as seatbelts, they reduce the chance of casual rape by an unknown but frankly those are the minority of rapes. But it’s the few that women can possibly avoid by being harder targets and all these precautions do is make them harder targets in the hope that the rapist will give up and leave them be.

The rapist is not going to go home and repent just because a woman made it harder. It’s not going to change his mind, he is just going to keep trying.

Susan and me don’t have different viewpoints. I don’t think rape victims are responsible for their rapes. I think people can take precautions to avoid situations where casual rapists and the like take advantage.

It’s not my intent to spam with copy/paste, but I also don’t want you to have to go cross-referencing comments from different threads in order to know what I’m talking about. Therefore in the interest of courtesy, I’ll restate the comment here. You’ll probably have to check the original comment in order to see the links and the block-quoted text.

Sure…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Avicenna,

Hi. I cannot watch Thunderf00t’s video (yet), so I can’t comment on that, but I would like to take some time to comment on your blog post here.

The fun thing is we don’t tell women not to take precautions. We specifically tell them to take precautions and to be worried.

Let me start by acknowledging the ambiguity inherent in the word “we”… I can’t be sure who “we is”, but I’m assuming that you’re speaking of the “Royal We” – the A+/FTB/Skepchik contingent, including, but not limited to, Zvan, Benson, Carrier, Myers, et al.

Okay, sure. Why not.

I repeat. If you asked any of the people on this list whether women who go on a date should have a check in time to see if they are safe or use a night bus or watch their drink in bars or try to not get blackout drunk then you are daft.

We however think that if women do get in these situations and get raped then it’s not their fault.

(If I’m wrong on this, then everything I’m about to say doesn’t apply… and I have no idea who “we” is.)

This is the same “Royal We” who were very supportive of a young lady named Sarah Jones who had a momentary tiff with Al Stefanelli a few months back when some mentally unstable guy on Stefanelli’s Facebook page began making death threats toward Ms. Jones. (Al quickly took appropriate action by deleting the guy and apologizing to Ms. Jones).

Zvan specifically included Ms. Jones in the “Royal We” with her post entitled ”How Many Do We Lose”

So if this is the “we” you area speaking of… I’d like to direct you to something that you might find surprising.

Avicenna said:

We specifically tell them to take precautions and to be worried.

Okay… but the death threats have nothing to do with this.

I am sure Sarah will agree with me. Women will take precautions to keep safe but if they don’t they are not to blame. Because the precautions they take are above and beyond the call of sensible behaviour. I don’t have to worry about being gang raped on a train. I don’t have to worry about my date pulling a weapon on me or spiking my drink.

Women have to take massive measures to avoid situations that I do not have to.

But Sarah Jones said:

When you suggest that women take any sort of action to avoid rape, you shift the blame where it properly should be (ie, on the rapist) and transfer some of it to women. You’re implying that she is at least partially responsible for becoming the victim of a crime.

Avicenna said:

We are not suggesting to women to go out and be care free. We have never done that. We aren’t stupid.

But Sarah Jones said:

Women do not have any sort of responsibility to avoid rape. Rapists have a responsibility to avoid rape. Any other dynamic, ye who despise ‘buzzwords,’ is a manifestation of rape culture. That’s reality.

The gadfly known as oolon, who is up there with SallyStrange in terms of FTB commentariate notoriety, gave Ms. Jones’ post his full agreement!

Another great post… Absolutely agree, the traditional skeptics hate that its moving beyond bigfoot skepticism and into other areas like feminism / social justice. Hope you can keep up the awesome.

Staphanie Zvan was aware of Sarah Jones’ post, as it was explicitly mentioned in some dialogue she pasted into a subsequent post. Not only was Jones’ post mentioned, but the very topic we’re discussing here was described, so it’s difficult to imaging that Zvan was unaware of what Ms. Jones was endorsing. Zvan’s silence is a tacit endorsement of these ideas.

Steersman: Those different perspectives on “victim-blaming” are indeed a puzzle, like two completely different langauges or “incommensurable” concepts. You might “enjoy” reading several of the comments over on Sarah Jones’ site which question my analogous argument that people do have some responsibility to lock their homes and that that argument does not constitute “victim blaming”.

So what we have here is clear evidence that members of the Royal We absolutely do endorse the idea that women have no responsibility whatsoever to look out for their own well-being, as well as evidence that other members of the Royal We and their fan base are allied to this doctrine.

If Sarah Jones thinks the way you think then I am afraid that’s a rather lovely piece of wishful thinking. Women shouldn’t have to worry about being raped, they really shouldn’t have to. But unfortunately they live in a world where rape does exist. Now the majority of rapists are NOT going to be put off by these things since they are known to the victim but the casual date rapes and the like? These are going to be stopped.

These opportunistic rapes are reduced. But as I stated, these methods vary from event to event in efficacy.

If you think Sarah Jones does not support ideas such as the StaySafe app or night buses then I think you are wrong.

Now… at this point I’d like to commend you for your position – I think you’re spot-on with the position you’re taking – judiciousness, prudence, and the acceptance of responsibility along with activism aimed at increasing awareness of the injustice of violence and assault aimed at women is the right approach. It is a wise parent who teaches their boys not to rape and their girls to locks their doors at night.

No…

I repeat. Women are not responsible for their own rapes. We cannot say to a woman walking home from a shift as a bartender that she had it coming because she was out late. These precautions are not universal, they are context sensitive in how they work and are not perfect responses.

Because not every woman can take all the actions needed to avoid rapes.

What if a young girl were to open a window to let some breeze in and get raped? Is she responsible then? See? You buy into the rapist prowling the streets testing for unlocked doors. Such rapists generally break and enter. Serial Rapists…. Most rapists however are the more casual sort. She was drunk, she clearly wanted it that sort of thing. None of those precautions affect those since most rapists are known to the victim in some way or used a drug such as GHB or indeed alcohol thus stopping the woman from responding in any way.

But I think you’re a bit misinformed if you think that the complete and total abdication of personal responsibility is not being endorsed by many feminists, including many that would be subsumed in the FBT/Skepchik faction. Sarah Jones is only one example.

So now I have a question… what is your position on the idea that Ms. Jones expressed in the blog post I linked to? What are your thoughts on statements such as “Women do not have any sort of responsibility to avoid rape.”? Are you prepared to repudiate that idea – and idea that was endorsed by at least one of the most fervent FTB gadfly’s, tactily endorsed by at least one of the FTB elite, and cheered on by dozens and dozens of commenters at Jones’ blog?

Because according to Sarah Jones, this post of yours – and you yourself – are a manifestation of rape culture.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(I can’t preview this so I hope the html tags aren’t screwed up.)

I repeat. Sarah Jones is not advocating that women don’t take any safety precautions like ride on the night bus or walk home in groups or watch their drinks carefully and not accept drinks from strangers (When I buy a lady a drink, I do so at the bar where she picks it up from the bartender.). She is simply saying that should you do so and get raped then it’s not your fault. Because the precautionary measures to avoid rape are so “retrospective”. Oh I didn’t accept a drink from a stranger but I ate a bar of birthday cake laced with GHB! Whoops! Oh I didn’t accept a drink from a stranger but he managed to slip something in when I wasn’t looking. I mean really? Is your eyes on your drink at all times? I mean we say “don’t get black out drunk” but I have drunk heavily in the past despite saying that because “it happens”. We don’t live in an ideal world where things move along set and hard paths.

I don’t think Jones thinks that women should not take any precautions for their own safety, I do think she (Like me) thinks that even if women take all the precautions, that this hypothetical woman can get raped and that some women cannot take all the precautions and that many precautions are rather hard to follow and effectively rule women out of a sensible situation.

You are most likely to be raped by a husband or a boyfriend. Don’t have any? No that’s mad! You are most likely to be raped by a date? No dates! Nope! Don’t drink, drunk girls get raped? Again? Nope!  Don’t go out late? Don’t show leg? Don’t cover up? Don’t wear a burkha? Don’t wear an Astronaut suit?

See. The dialogue thinks that there is a statistical method by which you can avoid rape. That if you meet this venn diagram zen of safety actions then you will not get raped. But we know in reality that it’s impossible to achieve this. So instead we say “look, just be safe. Take these precautions. They sometimes help. If they don’t then it’s not your fault”.

Comments

  1. angharad says

    I read your ‘we’, Avicenna, as being all of us. Our culture tells women all the time to take precautions. We don’t need to hear that message from FTB bloggers because we get told it by our parents, our friends, popular culture in both direct and indirect ways.

  2. blondeintokyo says

    You know, it’s just like the Christians with their Bible. She’s cherry picking from the posts on FTB and interpreting them to make it look as though they support what SHE wants to THINK they say.

    I have read NUMEROUS posts by every blogger she mentioned (and others) who have very clearly, very explicitly have said, more than once, (I paraphrase) “Women should take precautions, but if someone gets raped it is not their fault.”

    Yet no matter how clearly and explicitly the message is repeated, these people continuously and willfully misinterpret it.

    They believe what they WANT to believe. The hostility people have towards the blogger(s) they dislike is addling their brains.

  3. anne mariehovgaard says

    It’s also a question of context – when and where do you talk about taking precautions? There’s a huge difference between responding with “Women shouldn’t get drunk at parties” (or any other “Women should…”) anytime the problem of rape is brought up, and reminding all alcohol-drinking people to drink safely (and offer tips on how) whenever alcohol consumption is discussed.

  4. says

    I just read your “we” as meaning “us non rape-apologists”. Made perfect sense. How anyone could read that as “us FTB bloggers” is beyond me.

  5. says

    I think the basic message is that Kacyray specifically, as well as Phil Mason and Pitchguest and affiliated morons, are categorically barred from giving any woman anywhere any kind of advice about rape.

  6. says

    Avicenna,

    A couple points of clarification.

    – The Anthony B Susan blog is written by Sarah Jones.

    My dog has better control than the men you claim to represent.

    I do not represent anyone, nor have I ever claimed to. Why would you even say this?

    We need to give this to men and the MRA movement could be a force for that but unfortunately here it is trying to go “AHA! YOU ARE A RAPE APOLOGIST! WOOP WOOP WOOP!”

    At no point did I call you a rape apologist. I don’t believe you are one. My point was that Sarah Jones’ public statements indicate that she would consider you one based on your statements. If you were not so busy automatically assigning me to the enemy camp and viewing me in that context you might not be reading such things between the lines of what I’m saying.

    And if you believe I’m an MRA, you are mistaken. It is basic tribalism to assume that if I hold a position that is not perfectly congruous with yours, I must therefore be firmly in the enemy’s camp. I hope you’re better than that.

    No what you did was quote mine statements out of context and indeed post an article called Extraordinary Nonsense

    Quote mining is the act of citing a portion of what some says with the deliberate intent of making it seem as though they hold a position contrary to the position they actually hold. I did not do that. The citations from Ms. Jones’ faithfully represent her position.

    Susan and me don’t have different viewpoints. I don’t think rape victims are responsible for their rapes.

    Nor do I. But that wasn’t the viewpoint in question, was it?

    Ms. Jones said that “When you suggest that women take any sort of action to avoid rape, you shift the blame where it properly should be (ie, on the rapist) and transfer some of it to women. You’re implying that she is at least partially responsible for becoming the victim of a crime.”

    You said: “We specifically tell them to take precautions and to be worried.”

    That is as contradictory a message as there can be. There are no two ways about it.

    There seems to be some clear cognitive dissonance going on here. One of your feminist allies is claiming that an action you endorse and engage in amounts to rape apology. I can imagine that would be difficult for you to reconcile so it’s much easier to claim that she isn’t really saying what she is really saying. This is a neat and tidy solution, but I guarantee you that if such conflicting messages came from a creationist, a fundamentalist, or an MRA, you’d see it with immediacy and clarity. Somehow, with these messages coming from within the feminist ranks, the clear contradiction is eluding you.

    We however think that if women do get in these situations and get raped then it’s not their fault.

    Okay, let me make something clear, once and for all…

    I believe that if a woman goes to a bar in the worst parts of town, all by herself, barely dressed, with a tattoo on her arm that says “I will fuck anyone”, gets piss drunk, passes out on the bar with her legs wide open, and has her bush shaved in the shape of an arrow pointing straight at her vagina… it is not okay to have sex with her, if you do it is rape, and she would not be to blame for having been raped.

    Can I be any more clear about that?

    If Sarah Jones thinks the way you think then I am afraid that’s a rather lovely piece of wishful thinking.

    Sarah Jones does NOT think the way I think. In fact, she doesn’t even think the way YOU think. That’s the point I’ve been getting at!!!

    Look, I get it. She’s a feminist. You’re a feminist. I’m not. In your mind that means she’s an ally and I represent everything you despise. In practice that means you are going to bend over backward to reconcile her views with yours and, in the process, demonize me and presume what my views are and that I “represent” someone or something. I expected as much, but I had hoped for better.

    My long comment in your original post was intended to demonstrate that statements such as “We are not suggesting to women to go out and be care free. We have never done that. We aren’t stupid.” do NOT represent the feminist movement as a whole, and don’t even represent the views of feminists near your own near-circle.

    If you reject this, fair enough. I wish you well, and I appreciate the in-depth response. . If you don’t mind, I would still like to continue reading and commenting on your blog.

  7. says

    History has a tendency to repeat itself. However, one of the most unbeatable Shop for high worth men belts, great examine and unbeatable pricesways of being in form is to have a stylish outlook. The works are expected to be completed in 2016 and will add 42,700sq m to the existing centre taking Pacific Fair to 143,500sq m. The brand designs for men, women and children as well, enhancing their store with every item available for anyone and everyone. On a bright note, I am back in Jakarta and the Marlborough Man is missing from all of the places he was so publicly displayed when I was here in March 2010.

  8. says

    anne @4

    True, and this was brought up in that lengthy YouTube discussion between Thunderf00t, Aron Ra, etc… the idea that bringing up rape prevention measures after someone has been raped does more harm than good.

    I would agree completely – once damage has been done, the priority becomes healing and damage control (I’m speaking in generic terms because this is a universal principle). Once those things have been addressed and completed, there’s nothing wrong with conducting a “hot wash” (military term) to see what went wrong and analyze the causal factors that either led to it or enabled it. There’s also nothing wrong with analyzing the conditions in which the catastrophe took place, in order to assess whether there are ways to set future conditions in such a way as to make the catastrophe less likely to happen again in the future.

    However, no crime needs to be committed in order to simply have a conversation on the topic of “How can we set conditions in such a way as to make less likely to happen in the future?”

    That’s a perfectly reasonable conversation to have.

    One way we can set conditions is to foster a culture in which rape is considered not just unacceptable, but straight-up taboo – much in the way necrophilia and cannibalism are now.

    Another way we can set these conditions is to learn (or teach) behavioral habits that reduce the risk of one being victimized by those remaining individuals to whom cultural taboos are no deterrent.

    To emphasize either of those at the complete exclusion of the other is inefficient and does a disservice to potential victims. This applies to Sarah Jones *and* to Thunderf00t.

  9. thetalkingstove says

    Avicenna

    Because the precautionary measures to avoid rape are so “retrospective”.

    Damn right. It’s just so fucking trite and unhelpful. “Don’t go out to bars alone” may, in certain circumstances, be the correct advice. In others it might be “Don’t go to a library alone” or “Don’t go to stay with your old friend from college” or “Don’t be home when its just you and your husband”.

    kacyray

    I would agree completely – once damage has been done, the priority becomes healing and damage control (I’m speaking in generic terms because this is a universal principle). Once those things have been addressed and completed

    Hmm – it’s not really as simple ‘once these things have been addressed and completed’ though, is it? This damage can last the length of a person’s life.

    You’re right that rape statistics should be studied, but in a very careful and respectful manner by professionals – criminologists, etc. If there is something to be learnt from case studies and statistics about preventing rape then it will be uncovered in this way, not by a bunch of people on the internet hearing that, for example, a victim was drunk and saying “well, women shouldn’t drink, I guess”.

  10. says

    Hmm – it’s not really as simple ‘once these things have been addressed and completed’ though, is it? This damage can last the length of a person’s life.

    True. And in those cases, it probably serves no useful function to rehash the past.

    But any way you look at it, to withhold information from *any person* that might serve to help them make decisions which make them *less vulnerable* in the future is a disservice to that person, whether they’ve been victimized in the past or not.

    Obviously one must be judicious when offering such information. This applies to all injurious instances. For example, you wouldn’t tell a person whose child just got run over that they should’ve been watching their child more closely. But if you saw someone’s child playing in the street and you failed to offer that advice to the parent (who might be distracted at the moment)… you’re not exactly doing them any favors, are you?

  11. says

    What is funny (?) about this is that PitchGuest, KacyRay, Thunderf00t and assorted fucknuckles at the Slymepit will simultaneously rail against Schrodingers rapist – A post about the reality of many women’s lives which is that they *constantly* have to take the precautions that KacyRay/PG/TF/etc say “we” are against . When anyone points this out or blogs about it KR/TF/PitchGuest and pals will pop up to say they are being paranoid. There really is no need to take that level of precaution, they are making themselves victims… Or the ever popular “being professional victims” … They’ll whine “we” are calling all men rapists and any way it’s not true because a tiny proportion of rapes are by women. Whine. Whine.

    So you really cannot win – point out the amount of precautions needed to be taken to avoid rape and you are paranoid and focussing on men raping too much, #misandry! Try to change the focus away from what women need to do all the while and you are not taking women’s safety into account sufficiently. From either side you lose and there is only one explanation for this … Which we all know but it’s worth pointing out again….

    PitchGuest, KacyRay, Thunderf00t and the assorted Slymepitters are arguing in bad faith. They don’t care that their sound bite that “feminists don’t want women to take precautions” is an out and out lie, they know it sounds good to a subset of anti-feminist idiots and they repeat it in the face of any and all evidence. It’s a popularity and numbers game for them, you can see this from the repeated reference to his subscriber numbers that TF constantly relies on. From the pitters end-times predictions that FTB is about to collapse and it’s readership is constantly dropping. They don’t care about what is true or what is right for women, they want to win.

    This is why the atheist community, especially entitled men, have such a terrible reputation in feminist circles. I really didn’t realise this until the block bot started to get more popular – most of it’s users identify as feminists/ trans*/ genderqueer ppl (NOT atheists primarily) and they hate master debater empathy free atheists with a passion. In fact we partly downplayed the atheism plus branding of the bot because it was putting people off using it – had “atheism” in the name.

    Good example is from the Notorious Strange — blasting PG and TF’s evidence free arguments into the stratosphere. If he returns at all it will be with lots of bluster, but no substance.

  12. Chaos Engineer says

    However, no crime needs to be committed in order to simply have a conversation on the topic of “How can we set conditions in such a way as to make less likely to happen in the future?”

    That’s a perfectly reasonable conversation to have.

    The problem is that the question can be interpreted in two different ways: Call them, (A) How can we, as a society, reduce the total number of rapes? and (B) How can I, as an individual, avoid being attacked by rapists? Note that if I just avoid rapists; I’m not necessarily reducing the total number of rapes; I might be shifting the problem onto other people who are less able to protect themselves.

    If everybody else in a group is talking about reducing rape, then it’s really difficult to change the discussion to avoiding rape without looking like a jerk. But if everybody in a group is talking about avoiding rape then at some point it becomes fair to say, “Shouldn’t we spend less time talking about this, and more time talking about reducing rape?

  13. says

    Chaos Engineer @12

    Excellent framing of the conversation.

    Here’s my suggestion for a way to refine that framing.

    Question: How can we, as a society, reduce the total number of rapes?
    1) I can act to reshape the culture, in whatever ways are available to me, toward a society in which rape is taboo.
    2) I can take reasonable steps to increase my overall security posture.
    3) I can take the lessons that others have learned at very dear cost and use them to educate others on how to increase their overall security posture.

    But Sarah Jones says that #3 is victim blaming.

    “When you suggest that women take any sort of action to avoid rape, you shift the blame where it properly should be (ie, on the rapist) and transfer some of it to women. You’re implying that she is at least partially responsible for becoming the victim of a crime.” – Sarah Jones

    Do you agree with Ms. Jones?

    If everybody else in a group is talking about reducing rape, then it’s really difficult to change the discussion to avoiding rape without looking like a jerk.

    It’s especially difficult when the opinion about the person doing it has already been established in the negative.

    But if everybody in a group is talking about avoiding rape then at some point it becomes fair to say, “Shouldn’t we spend less time talking about this, and more time talking about reducing rape?

    As you’ve pointed out, it’s a multifaceted approach. When it comes down to it, any time you’re discussing any of the steps 1-3 above, you’re discussing ways to reduce rape – even if only by one case.

    I get your point, though.

  14. B-Lar says

    Kacyray

    #3 is victim blaming, if that is the only focus.

    When Thunderknobhead waxes lyrical about how telling boys not to rape is stupid/offensive/irresponsible/whateverdrivelheiscomingoutwiththisweek and that it is the woman’s fault that she “got raped” because she did/didn’t do xyz, everyone should rightly take offense. Its bullshit.

    If you are actually having a holistic discussion regarding all the aspects of the problem, then fine. if you are arguing against feminists because you think that you shouldn’t take responsibility for your own actions, then you’re a rape apologist, victim blaming asshole, and you deserved to be called out as such.

    Also, bear in mind that it is ALWAYS going to be incredibly condescending for men to talk about what women can do to stay safe. Its like, the epitome of mansplaining. Chances are you are going to come off as a massive asshole no matter how patient and reasonable you think you are being.

    #3 has been done to death. Why not be a maverick, and focus on #1 exclusively given that fact? Why not go and tell thunderfoot?

  15. says

    B-Lar

    #3 is not victim blaming, and such a statement, as well as pretty much everything else you’ve said, indicates that even engaging you in this conversation would be a waste of time. So I won’t.

    Pretty much anyone who uses the term “mansplianing” outs themselves as a juvenile, uninterested in serious discourse regarding any ideas that might question your sacred cows. Why don’t you and Sally Strange go play on a swingset or something?

  16. says

    I would have responded to this sooner but didn’t have the time.

    First, thanks to Avicenna for writing a great post. My comment is going to be a little long, so I apologize in advance.

    1. I’m not associated with Freethought Blogs (or Skepchick) in any way. I wasn’t when this fiasco first started, and I’m not now. This isn’t out of any particular animus toward FtB but rather because I simply haven’t been involved with the secular movement, and until I started getting death threats, I wasn’t familiar with the community–or with Freethought Blogs. It’s more than a little absurd to imply, as Kacy does, that Stephanie meant to affiliate me with FtB by including me in what he refers to as the “royal We.” Her usage could mean a number of things–we feminists, we women, we people who have been harassed on the Internet. And for the record, even if she did mean “we feminists”–feminists aren’t a monolith.

    2. I stand by my statements that Steersman’s “argument” that rape prevention is just like theft prevention is absurd. Women aren’t objects to be locked away from the world. Most women are raped by people they already trust–partners, friends, family members. So what’s his brilliant solution? Avoid male family members? Don’t make male friends? Don’t date men at all? That sounds awfully…misandrist. As for the rest–do I never drink again? Do I never go out after dark?

    So I don’t think the conversation should be focused on what women can do to avoid rape. I think it should be focused on educating men and boys about enthusiastic consent and healthy boundaries. It should be focused on eradicating sexism. Until that’s addressed then I’m going to doubt the real use of rape reduction strategies.

    3. All that said–I don’t think Avicenna and I actually disagree on much. I think Kacy’s just looking for a fight. That, or he’s developed psychic abilities and understands *exactly* what my position is and what I *actually* mean without speaking to me. Which is amusing, given that he just misrepresented everything I wrote.

  17. says

    3) I can take the lessons that others have learned at very dear cost and use them to educate others on how to increase their overall security posture.

    All of the ACTUAL lessons I’ve gotten from actual people who were actual victims of rape bore ZERO resemblance to anything you’ve promoted, or Phil Mason has promoted, as helpful advice.

    Which is why YOU, Kacyray, should shut the fuck up about advice about rape because it always comes out as victim blaming. Because you don’t know what you’re talking about, and you’re too busy playing “gotcha” with the Straw Feminists in your mind to actually listen to what actual victims have to say.

    You’re a bad person and you should feel bad.

  18. says

    Well Sarah has commented and Kacyray was completely wrong in determining her meaning, as pretty much everyone pointed out. She agrees with Avicenna. I’m sure Kacyray will now apologise and move on …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>