International Women's Day

Have a nice woman's day candid. You are so valuable for us

That all men for just this one day each year refrain from.

The thing is Candid, I've never done any of those things and I'm a man. I understand your point but it's the all men I struggle with because it's a very broad brush by which to paint. I've had debates with women about who gets the children or assets in divorce to be told "Not all women do". I guess in the hope of balance it would be nice to acknowledge the same. Enjoy women's day.
Btw: When's men's day? ; )

tokeless wrote:Btw: When's men's day? ; )

November 19th

tokeless wrote:I've never done any of those things

Well done. Me neither.

I understand your point BUT

And I'm a happily married woman BUT it has often been said, and by people cleverer than I, that the existence and preponderance of male violence towards women is a system (usually referred to as the patriarchy) from which all men benefit. For now I'm staying off matters such as pay parity, the freedom to go where we please (and dressed as we see fit), etc.

I've had debates with women about who gets the children or assets in divorce to be told "Not all women do". I guess in the hope of balance it would be nice to acknowledge the same.

Having worked at one stage with the Family Court, I'm aware of how many meetings, how much discussion, and how much sheer bloody angst goes into deciding who gets the children. If we get it wrong, the results are often tragic. I've yet to hear of a woman killing her children during an access visit, but vice versa is appallingly common. His own children! Who'd have thought?

Btw: When's men's day? ; )

January 1 to December 31, every year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5lMxWWK218

In the year 2020, it might also be presumed that we finally recognize that systemic problems given a label such as "the Bourgeoise", "the Jews", or "the Patriarchy" are divisive and it never, never, never works out very well.

Labels that try to place collective blame, shame, or guilt on a particular group, religion, or gender eventually justifies, for some, behaviors that are less than peaceful and less than helpful in addressing whatever systemic issues might exist.

"Human trafficking" is a systemic problem that is a good example. It doesn't label a large group of people and imply that they are the root cause.

But it doesn't take much to change it from a helpful "Human trafficking" label where you can gain cooperation and constructive dialogue across groups to turn it into a negative. Just say "the Patriarchy" is to blame for human trafficking and the dynamics change. Suddenly, Joe the accountant living in Iowa with his wife and two kids is part of the problem. Suddenly, Doug the police chief that has a daughter and wants to help eliminate human trafficking must first acknowledge his implicit, privileged role as a member of the patriarchy. But Joe and Doug can't ever adequately demonstrate their collective shame, because there is no Scarlett letter they can wear. There is no card they can carry in their wallets that allows them to demonstrate to feminists or those in the other group that they have atoned for their sins of being the wrong gender.

Human trafficking is a system 99% dominated by men. Does that mean that men, merely by the fact they exist as men, are the cause? And even if men are the root cause, is that the point of leverage in the system that will address the fundamental problem? I don't think so. I think history shows that men are certainly the dominant force in all sorts of human trafficking, but being "man" is not the cause.

The bottom line, when I think of systemic issues I try to avoid charged labels that attempt to place blame on entire groups of people.

Thank you, Richard, for waiting until March 8 was well and truly over before framing what is, as always, a considered and thoughtful reply. I expected no less from you.

I asked for a one-day annual moratorium on men's violence in civvy street and I'm well aware that men and boys get knocked about and violated, too. Fear of shaming and ridicule may well skew the figures as far as reports of men assaulted by women is concerned, but I think not. The elephant in the room is not that only females are violated, which isn't true, but the simple fact that people such as tokeless and your good self think radical feminism is dangerous, one-sided, and a hysterical over-reaction to what so many of us have endured and are still enduring at the hands of men. This is part of a culture unable to face facts and, naturally, unwilling to see the hideous power structure that normalises male supremacy worldwide.

I'm glad at least that you acknowledge a "systemic problem" but have to inform you that it isn't feminism causing divisiveness; it is the community assumption that all is well with human male/female relations, that it's the natural order of things for men to have so much power and for women to consent to it -- or, if we dare to complain, that we are part of the problem because of how we dress, how we behave, where we go and at what times.

In 1977, when the first Reclaim the Night march was held in Leeds, I was just 15 and remember watching it on the news with a growing sense of excitement and political conviction. The Yorkshire Ripper was still terrorising the north of England and the police had been advising that, to avoid attack, women should stay inside after dark. The march responded directly to this warning (placards read "No curfew on women - curfew on men") and hundreds of women shouted about their anger at being kept off the streets - the supposedly public highways, after all - by the threat of male violence. ~ https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/nov/22/publicvoices.crime

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:Labels that try to place collective blame, shame, or guilt on a particular group, religion, or gender eventually justifies, for some, behaviors that are less than peaceful and less than helpful in addressing whatever systemic issues might exist.

the idea that women should protect themselves by staying inside after dark seems to carry as much weight as ever. Recent coverage about women being "irresponsible" if they drink to excess and then report rape has given the distinct impression that the streets are only safe for very well-behaved, sober women, and then only if they venture out in daylight hours. Police still routinely warn women to "be careful" when out late at night, an approach that puts the onus on women to protect themselves, rather than pinpointing their would-be attackers. (It's strange, isn't it, that if a man is physically attacked on the streets after dark, there is never any question of blaming him or branding him irresponsible?) ~ https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/nov/22/publicvoices.crime

Do you think this is fair, that as a woman I'm obliged to consider at all times the possibility that the heavy footsteps behind me may signal a threat -- and that if the worst occurs, it will be my fault for being there?

Human trafficking is a system 99% dominated by men. Does that mean that men, merely by the fact they exist as men, are the cause?

By existing? Of course not. But by their actions, certainly. Not Joe the accountant, Doug the police chief; not desperate788 with his eyes fixed on his own navel, tokeless the good husband or Richard the ever-ready first responder. Not all men is not the issue; probably not even most men. But when there is a systemic problem, which there certainly is, is it not both right and natural to look for who's causing it?

And even if men are the root cause, is that the point of leverage in the system that will address the fundamental problem? I don't think so.

What, then, would you propose? That the victims themselves will have to get their act together, refuse ever to be alone with a man or the sole female in a group of men, take more responsibility just for being there?

The bottom line, when I think of systemic issues I try to avoid charged labels that attempt to place blame on entire groups of people.

As I have tried to do, without awarding a medal to the man who's quick to inform me "I've never done any of those things", and implying it was wrong of me to request "that all men for just this one day each year refrain from" treating women as subordinates, chattels, bodies to be used for their pleasure and then, all too often, eliminated.

We women are terrified of alienating men and being thought of as lesbians. Let’s face it, it takes very little to be named a man-hater, and the intended slur of ‘lesbian’ is never that far behind. All we have to do is gently suggest that it might be men who benefit most from women’s subordination, and that they have no right to have special treatment simply because they were born male. And we haven’t even got to radical feminism yet.

[i]Three: It is Not FAIR to exclude men. From anything. It would be like organising an office Christmas lunch, and not inviting the boss.

I remember my time as a mature student listening to younger women talk about how dreadful their women’s study classes were. Most men couldn’t give a hoot about issues that only concerned women, and so gave the course a wide berth, but there was always one (or two) men who would show up. Half of the class would feel silenced by his presence (especially when disclosing personal stories of sexual abuse as so often happens when women get together in a sympathetic arena), whilst the other half would spend most of the session feeling sorry for him, or defending him.

It is not the case that I do not want men to be involved in feminism. I do. But I want them to start their own groups and not invade mine. Why? Because women have the right to have our own physical space to talk about what men do to us in our private and public lives. This movement only exists, because of men abusing and colonising us – in other words, you are the problem boys, not equal partners. ~ https://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/guest-post-julie-bindel/

I guess bad people do bad things. I'm not going to apologise for my gender because by doing so I would be accepting I have responsibility for the bad guys,when I don't. I would challenge such behaviour if I witnessed it, which I did many years ago. I still have the scar on my scalp from the stiletto heel his girlfriend hit me with because I intervened when he was dragging her up the road. Would I do it again? Absolutely, because not every incident was that one. A bit like not every man is the man who abuses women.

Candid wrote: Do you think this is fair, that as a woman I'm obliged to consider at all times the possibility that the heavy footsteps behind me may signal a threat -- and that if the worst occurs, it will be my fault for being there?

There is a lot to unpack so if you don't mind indulging me a bit, let's start here.

You are saying "The Patriarchy" = women are obliged that heavy footsteps may signal a threat and if something happens people will claim the woman is at fault. And in your mind, this is not fair.

Please correct where I have misunderstood.

_____

Do you think that whenever I'm walking and hear heavy footsteps behind me that I am not obliged to consider that it might be a threat? If so, where did you get that impression?

Men don't walk around devoid of fear from heavy footsteps. Men don't walk around without evaluating risk on a constant basis, quite the opposite.

Children, the elderly, men, women, we all...each and every single one of us, evaluate whether or not it is safe to walk down a dark ally alone at night. We all try to evaluate risk. We all experience a degree of fear.

Is it unfair that a healthy adult male has less risk than an old man with a walker? Maybe. Okay. It's unfair. But it's the fault of "The Patriarchy" that it is unfair? Or is it just the way the universe works? Is it just the simple fact that in life not everything is equal?

When the old man is found dead in the morning people will judge and claim the old man stupid for taking such a risk. Some certainly may wish to frame it as "his fault" but why? Might it be that in society we collectively are shouting to other old men, "Don't take the risk! If you are an old man with a walker, use better judgment!"

It is true that if it was a young man found dead in the morning the outrage and blame will be less than if it is an elderly man or a woman. Again, why? Because people can evaluate relative risk. People know that a young man is not taking the same level of risk as someone more vulnerable and therefore will conclude the young man was being "less stupid".

It is as if you wish there be equal or the same reaction to the death of the young man, the old man, or a woman and if society doesn't react equally then it is proof of some systemic unfairness. I disagree. I think the majority of people simply recognize that risks are not equal for everyone.

A young man has a much better chance of dodging heavy traffic while crossing a highway than a woman or an old man. A young man has a much better chance of climbing a tall border fence or swimming across currents than the old man or woman. The risks are different and therefore when it is discovered the old man was hit in traffic or the woman fell well climbing the fence, the outrage is not equal to that of the young man hit in traffic or falling from the fence. Is that the fault of "The Patriarchy"?

How did the old man die? Who was the predator? The assumption at this point is that it was the apex predator, the young adult male, full of testosterone between the ages of 18-25. Both the old man and the young adult male are full-fledged members of "The Patriarchy", but apparently the universe doesn't draw such a distinction.

Or, might it be the case, that the old man was one of the over 25,000 people each year killed by dogs?

A personal story from India. After a movie, walking alone back to my hotel I came across a pack of wild dogs. Very common in India, dogs sleep during the day and then form packs at night and go around to the trash heaps to eat. I felt the fear as I slowly backed away and took a different route.

Had I tried to pass the dogs and been mauled or killed the following day the outrage and claims of my stupidity would probably be less than if I were an old man or a woman. And rightfully so, because while the pack of dogs is the same, the level of risk it poses to me versus any other person is not equal.

__________

At this point, trying to understand what exactly is so unfair, I must conclude that it is an argument of free will, of volition. The dogs, the highway, the unequal risks we face in life are not the same as the "young male predator" risk. Why? Because out of all the risks out there in life it is the young male predator that has volition. And the young male predator chooses to make those more vulnerable his preferred victim and this is unfair. The young male predator should choose his victims equally.

"The Patriarchy" must somehow then, not only be responsible in the systemic development of young male predators, but also responsible for the inequality in the choices they make to victimize those more vulnerable, e.g the elderly. If young male predators were to equally victimize other young males then the system would be fair. Heavy footsteps must mean the same thing for everyone.

Candid wrote:What, then, would you propose? That the victims themselves will have to get their act together, refuse ever to be alone with a man or the sole female in a group of men, take more responsibility just for being there?

Here is a second item to unpack a bit.

Let's pretend "The Matriarchy" exists. It's a world where the system favors the woman. In such a world does the woman no longer need to take care when alone with a man or when the sole female in a group of men? Does this system mean she no longer has responsibility for placing herself in such a situation?

I hope the answer is a resounding, "Of course she still must take care." A systemic Matriarchy doesn't suddenly remove the risk of a bad individual or gang committing acts of rape or violence.
Even if the world was wonderfully a 50/50 "power" split between men and women with half the worlds CEO's being women, it isn't also going to make it equally risky for a man to be alone with a woman than a woman with a man.

Unless the idea is that a Matriarchy is able to fundamentally transform the nature of humanity there will still be gangs, there will still be violence, and most of that violence will be at the hands of men. Maybe the leader of the drug cartels and the lieutenants are women in a matriarchy, but the raw violence will still be dished out by the men they lead.

What I will concede is that in a Matriarchy violence against women would be reduced. Penalties for violence against women would be increased. But does this solve our "unfairness" problem of a woman being alone with a man? No!!! Even if the risk is lessened in a Matriarchy, the woman still needs to take more care when alone with a man than the opposite case. Why? Because men and women are fundamentally different. The man is stronger and can rape the woman if he so chooses, even in a Matriarchy.

In other words, targeting "The Patriarchy" does nothing to address the problem you presented.

What does address the problem is to treat people like individuals instead of groups. What helps is to teach individuals that they must take personal responsibility for evaluating and mitigating risky situations. No two people will have the same risk profile.

tokeless wrote:I'm not going to apologise for my gender

No one wants you to, tokeless. Feminism is not synonymous with man-hating.

I still have the scar on my scalp from the stiletto heel his girlfriend hit me with because I intervened when he was dragging her up the road. Would I do it again? Absolutely, because not every incident was that one.

Gold star for this, my friend. Are you aware that the most dangerous situation for the police is domestic violence? They are well aware of this and have special awareness training for it, precisely for situations such as you've described.

I used to live in the downstairs of a converted house (never again!) where I heard every footstep and every argument from the young couple upstairs. Arguments were frequent, especially when he got home in the small hours. It was merely an annoyance until the night I heard her sobbing and something about him hitting her.

So next day after he'd gone out I went up and tapped their door. She answered, smiling. As I told her I'd overheard her, that I was willing and able to get both her and her stuff to a safe place, her expression completely changed and she slammed the door.

So he was home for five minutes before I heard him thundering down the stairs and then an aggressive thumping on my door. Was I scared? You bet, but I lived there too and he was going to catch me alone sooner or later. The only thing to do was stride to the door, yank it open and bark: "Yes?"

After he'd gone I considered how often I'd struggled to get myself and my shopping past the pushbike he habitually left in the hall, so next time they entertained their rowdy visitors I slipped out and wheeled it into my living room. He had to walk to work for several weeks, not knowing who'd made off with it, while I appreciated the clear run I'd created.

Thing is, it's normal for a battered woman to attack her rescuer. He's perpetually angry, the wife-beater, and being interrupted is going to make him really mad. If she doesn't back him up, she's going to pay for it later.

Look after yourself, tokeless. The Movement needs more like you.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:You are saying "The Patriarchy" = women are obliged that heavy footsteps may signal a threat and if something happens people will claim the woman is at fault. And in your mind, this is not fair.

Please correct where I have misunderstood.

The quoted text raises three points. Every human female knows that heavy footsteps behind us when we are alone may be a threat. We are inculcated with that knowledge right from the start: by our parents, by adult conversation, by the media. It’s not much different from being a gazelle and warned early that there are lions in the area. This will be a daily, constant oppression, and it will go on all her life.

Indeed, if a woman is sexually assaulted she will treated as the one at fault. She has some reason for walking alone at night. It’s a compelling one: she needs to get somewhere, and if she doesn’t drive, she hopes she’ll get to the bus stop unscathed. Of course, she is also be at risk if there is no one at the bus stop, or if there are males waiting. Or she has miscalculated: she went somewhere while it was still light, and the lift she expected to be present didn’t show up. She is unsafe walking. She is unsafe getting a cab, because after dark almost all drivers will be male. There has been at least one female cab driver murdered by a fare.

In my mind this is not fair? To me, the blame is unfair. Of course it is. Victim-blaming is bullying.

There is no lifestyle that will guarantee a female human’s safety. If we were to attempt to keep ourselves safe, reproduction would come to a halt. We could never be alone with a man. But even that would not ensure safety. Rapists break into women’s homes. One of them boasted publicly about removing roof tiles to gain access.

At work these days I’m saddened to see so many cases of mostly teenaged girls who ‘meet’ a male online and agree to go to his home. Or they meet him in a public place, and he’s charming and polite, and then they go off somewhere.

There are cases of women drinking at a bar, then waking hours later in an unknown place (usually the perpetrator’s home) with their clothes in disarray and vaginal soreness. They have to consider themselves lucky if the man or men has gone out.

The majority of sexual assault victims, apart from being female, are aged between 13 and 35. In addition to a fear of males (whether innate or learned), they know by the often-cruel media that they must be slim, beautiful and flirty, displaying their wares to all comers. There’s the meat market, folks; the meat is waiting and hoping to be consumed. They are driven by their biological needs every bit as much as men are, but what they are waiting and hoping for is that old-fashioned thing called courtship: first the appreciation of their efforts to be appealing to males, then the display of protective behaviours, and at all times, evidence of the means to support the as-yet unthought-of offspring.

Last time I walked along my town’s nightclub strip after dining at a restaurant there, I was truly frightened for the girls and young women I saw – but someone shaped and dressed like Amy Farrah Fowler is no safer than someone shaped and dressed like Penny. Rape is not flattery, it is punishment. It can be punishment for being ‘ugly’ or it can be punishment for being the kind of female that the brooding male believes would never agree to go out with him. When researching on line – and without visiting the dark web – I see horrific misogynist writings by men, advising each other what they should do to the [insert disgusting name-calling].

Virtually all women have been colonised early. Throughout the rest of the animal kingdom it is the male who struts and displays to the female. An obvious example is the peacock spreading his beautiful tail, turning in hopeful circles while the drab females peck at food all around him.

Homo sapiens has evolved in a way that means both females and males must show ‘em what we’ve got: younger females show their bodies while males of all ages show their physical and financial prowess. For females it’s more urgent. We have roughly half the time males have in which we are fertile.

Do you think that whenever I'm walking and hear heavy footsteps behind me that I am not obliged to consider that it might be a threat?

I hope and expect you will acknowledge the fact that you are not anywhere near as likely to be physically assaulted as a woman is. Any male who attacked you would most likely be after your wallet rather than your anus, so all you have to do is hand over the money. In the unlikely event of you being beaten to a pulp, no one will say you were asking for it because of what you were wearing, or because you were in that place at that time.

Children, the elderly, men, women, we all...each and every single one of us, evaluate whether or not it is safe to walk down a dark ally alone at night.

I agree with you, and I understand that a lone male walking around in a third-world country would be as vulnerable to physical assault as a lone female, but that the lone female is very much more likely to be a target, a) because she’s highly unlikely to be able to fight back, and b) because this would be a double coup: she too is carrying money, and once he’s pocketed that he can get his rocks off as well.

I actually quoted this par to point out that the dark alley is a myth. In all my years of working with survivors of sexual assault, I haven’t seen a single dark-alley case. On our tick-box form the ticked box is almost always either client’s home or perpetrator’s home. Rather more shocking is entertainment venue, in which a person – chiefly female but occasionally male – has been followed to the toilets, shoved in, and sexually assaulted. By a male, of course.

There’s an unlit alley adjacent to the block of flats I live in, and I’m a frequent user. Fortunately it’s a short alley. If it were, say, three times as long and had a twist or two in it, on winter evenings returning from my writers’ circle meetings I would have to consider whether it's safer to take the alley or the route that would mean I spend much longer on the street. It’s Hobson’s choice, really.

I think the majority of people simply recognize that risks are not equal for everyone.

Yes, obviously. I may have worded it badly, but I wanted to make two points. The first is about blame. I don’t believe anyone is going to blame older people or any-age males for the fact that someone has attacked them. We consider ourselves a reasonable and educated species, and we know that the aggressor is always the one at fault. This falls down when a woman in her fertile years is sexually assaulted. That’s what it’s all about. Patriarchy somehow has a contempt for fertile-aged women. A child as young as two is neither immune to sexual assault nor blamed for it; the same applies for the elderly.

Within the past year, by the way, I have seen referrals for these people, the baby and the old person, both of them female, both sexually assaulted by men. Yet when it happens to women of fertile age, both men and women will immediately look for absolutely any reason to blame her for being attacked. You must surely be aware that in the minority of cases dealt with in court, the reasons for blame and disbelief go to ludicrous lengths.

The second point is about perpetrators. They are invariably male. This is not to be confused with the notion that all men must be blamed because some men rape.

Is that the fault of "The Patriarchy"?

Not the examples you gave in this paragraph, but in cases of male-on-female sexual violence, yes indeed. In a conversation with the counsellor who sees exclusively those going to court***, she confirmed my understanding that it didn’t make any difference whether the jury was mostly men or mostly women. It is patriarchy that makes the average male and the average colonised female choose to humiliate the fertile-aged woman weeping in the witness box.

A feminist friend once said to me: “What’s needed is for men to collude in their own oppression the way women do.” Patriarchal values set us up in competition with each other for the male 'prize'.

You may be surprised to learn that 90 per cent of people are biased against women. My mother-in-law once told me "I don't like woman" in an ordinary conversation in which she neither blinked nor batted an eyelid. I was speechless despite the fact that I've heard it from other women as well.

https://www.france24.com/en/20200306-ne ... tudy-finds

When men talk about men they include themselves. Clearly when any woman says "I don't like women" she means apart from me. I'm not like that. Perhaps you remember the outpourings of QueenBeauty?

Everyone I work with knows what the elephant in the room is, and it isn't that so many people are sexually assaulted by other people. The real elephant is that it's biological, probably evolutionary, and therefore unlikely to stop. Ever. The rapist is going to disseminate (I use the word purposely) his genes far more widely than the faithful husband.

The assumption at this point is that it was the apex predator, the young adult male, full of testosterone between the ages of 18-25.

Bang on, Richard! You’ve nailed the most common perpetrator age bracket on referral forms. We have the data, so there’s no need for assumption.

The dogs, the highway, the unequal risks we face in life are not the same as the "young male predator" risk. Why? Because out of all the risks out there in life it is the young male predator that has volition. And the young male predator chooses to make those more vulnerable his preferred victim and this is unfair.

Again, this is natural (which of course doesn’t make it right). What one surely must object to is the victim-blaming levied at fertile-aged women.

Heavy footsteps must mean the same thing for everyone.

Hardly! Heavy footsteps may signal physical assault for a male, but it definitely threatens both physical and sexual assault for a female. Of all the young buck’s potential victims, only those females of fertile age must decide whether to suffer in silence or to talk about it. The results of either are equally horrible.

As a tall woman who habitually wears flat shoes rather than high heels, I see women shrink away as I pass them on the street after dark. I know some men experience the same thing. It’s wry comedy that we (kindly men and I) hurry to pass the lone woman because we know she’ll stop worrying then. Comedy comes in because on hearing this, she will immediately start walking faster, too.

Let's pretend "The Matriarchy" exists. It's a world where the system favors the woman. In such a world does the woman no longer need to take care when alone with a man or when the sole female in a group of men?

It’s hard to take this post seriously, but the answer to this question is no. It’s no for the same reason that there can never be a matriarchy. We are womb-men; we can start a statistically unlikely maximum of six offspring in one go, and will then have to wait at least nine months before we can make any more. The demands on our bodies, even if we exclude giving birth, are enormous. The need for pre-contraceptives woman to deny entry to any and all comers is obvious, an instinct over-ridden by certain groups of women now that reliable contraception is freely available.

Denying entry to one’s body surely ought to be a fundamental (not feminist) human right, protected by law in the interests of society. Protected by law means suitably punished. There’s nothing anyone can do to prevent rape, but a great deal could be done to prevent the automatic victim-blaming faced by fertile-aged females.

Does this system mean she no longer has responsibility for placing herself in such a situation?

Of course not. All rational adults are responsible for placing ourselves in any situation. I reiterate: no precaution exists to ensure a person will never be sexually assaulted. There is literally no safe time or place, there is only relative safety.

What I will concede is that in a Matriarchy violence against women would be reduced. Penalties for violence against women would be increased.

I like this very much, and would add that we need a much higher rate of conviction. To this end we also need to stop a defence barrister’s

irrelevant questions (re. how she was dressed, whether she’d been drinking, her sexual history)
accusations and insinuations that she is lying
insulting suggestions intended to set the jury against her
ridicule when she's crying or (understandably!) lost for words

But no one is asking for a matriarchy, Richard. Feminism asks merely for equality of respect and wage-earning capacity. Feminists are merely people (yes, there are male feminists) who are both aware of grotesque inequality and sick of kowtowing to male supremacy.

The point of events such as International Women’s Day and Reclaim the Night is education and awareness, of the kind that went on before attitudes changed towards those seen as Others such as blacks and disabled people. Change the law and attitudinal change follows, most of it positive rather than backlash.

Your examples of old-men accident victims and canine perpetrators are irrelevant in this discussion. In this struggle to be included in the human race, we know those who are not for us are against us.


*** They are special counsellors because they may talk about anything other than the assault, ie. they must stick to repercussions, feelings, coping skills etc. Counsellor notes are subpoenaed pre-trial to avoid accusations of coaching.

Perpetrators, on the other hand, are coached in every conceivable way.

Candid wrote:Your examples of old-men accident victims and canine perpetrators are irrelevant in this discussion. In this struggle to be included in the human race, we know those who are not for us are against us.

It is as if there are two Candid's. There is the Candid that seems more open to discussion about addressing the actual problems and acknowledges the elephant is a biological reality and then a second Candid that bolds a phrase of divisive propaganda that no longer includes "old-men" as part of the human race.

The first Candid acknowledges that biological realities mean that risks will be different for men and women, but then calls a discussion of those risks irrelevant. In my example, the old man was either killed by the biological apex predator (18-25 year old male) or the canine. I wonder why you chose to forget this first risk and only include the second.

The second Candid uses political phrases that might as well have been written in the books of Karl Marx or Che Gueverra, while the first Candid seems to have plenty of experience and is knowledgeable about the struggles victims of violence face.

I think the challenge going forward depends on your goal(s). If your goal is to be a credible voice for reducing male violence against females then it is best served by disconnecting from the broader goal and propaganda of taking down the patriarchy.

On the other hand, if your goal is to be included in the human race and to bring about the downfall of the patriarchy, then your voice will be very credible in and amongst a small circle of feminists. You will enjoy an echo chamber discussing the colonization of women.

As a theoretical side note, I was thinking about why the colonizers of women decided to also build toilets for women? And why are the bathrooms for women often much nicer and cleaner? Or why build medical clinics or health services for women? Colonizers don't normally care about the comfort, health and well being of those whom they colonize. Why do the colonizers provide women access to the Internet or have laws that protect those they have colonized? And it is odd that the colonizers allow women the right to free speech and elect them to leadership positions, including the prime minister. Why don't the colonizers conscript women to build the roads, to fight the wars, to be used however they please? It seems odd that the colonizers would build pretty much 99% of the infrastructure for the very people they are colonizing.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:... a second Candid that bolds a phrase of divisive propaganda that no longer includes "old-men" as part of the human race.

Where have I said I want to exclude old men from the human race??

Old men are not victims of violence anywhere near as often as women are. Pertinent to this discussion, if an old man happens to get in a young buck's way he will not be blamed for it. He will never be told he should not have been in public space, still less that he was improperly dressed.

... the struggles victims of violence face.

Those struggles are greatly exacerbated for female victims of rape by the discovery that their community will not care for them. Rape has been described as "the beginning of a nightmare" because if the victim isn't actually killed, she must then figure out how she can keep herself safe in future. The answer is, she can't.

I have no statistics to prove this, but it's my understanding that any victim of rape is more vulnerable to attack than she was before her eyes were opened to the fact of male/female violence. There are stories of rapists misjudging their targets, and the one that got away. However, once the nightmare has begun, we know that running off, struggling, or fighting back will just make the attacker angrier.

It's instinctive to try to save our own lives, even though so many rape survivors (myself included) have had cause to say: "I wish I'd let him kill me." Because after rape, when you've been through the callous responses to talking about it (eg. the smirking "Did you enjoy it?"), you discover the shocking truth that 90 per cent of people don't like women.

If your goal is to be a credible voice for reducing male violence against females...

I don't expect that to happen. Ever. I'm amateur biologist as well as card-carrying feminist, so I'm aware of male/female relations in species other than my own, especially the other mammals. It has to be said, though, that the adult lion doesn't rape cubs.

I would like to see the "women who hate women" having a change of heart without fear of being labelled man-haters. My efforts with QueenBeauty? were, of course, futile -- but I won't let that stop me.

On the other hand, if your goal is to be included in the human race...

Shouldn't need to be a goal, should it!

... and to bring about the downfall of the patriarchy

Change the law, and attitudes change. We've made plenty of strides in our struggle for equality, and we will continue to make them until the alpha male wanting to silence women in public debate will be a dinosaur. I do not expect an end to rape; I expect community attitudes to change so that women are no longer both a) unprotected; and b) made accountable for male violence.

your voice will be very credible in and amongst a small circle of feminists. You will enjoy an echo chamber discussing the colonization of women.

The circle is widening, Richard, and it will never be a threat to your way of life.

As a theoretical side note, I was thinking about why the colonizers of women decided to also build toilets for women?

So men can use urinals without women seeing what they've got. Queues for women's toilets are always much longer than queues for men's toilets. I have been known to walk into male toilets and use a cubicle. The men in a row, or the lone male standing there because he doesn't want other men to see his package either, look terrified.

And why are the bathrooms for women often much nicer and cleaner?

I would have expected you to know that, Richard. The majority of men are unaware bathrooms need cleaning.

Or why build medical clinics or health services for women?

A relatively very recent phenomenon, one of the 'strides' referred to earlier -- because it was finally acknowledged that women have different needs to men, and it isn't because (as in Freud's day) women were somehow incomplete men.

It may surprise you to know that despite patriarchy's best efforts, some women now earn decent salaries and get equal time in council meetings. Some of us are respected decision-makers. We no longer have to go cap-in-hand to the nearest man when we want a new or different service.

Why do the colonizers provide women access to the Internet or have laws that protect those they have colonized? And it is odd that the colonizers allow women the right to free speech and elect them to leadership positions, including the prime minister.

All of these things are recent phenomena, directly or indirectly attributable to feminism. We're allowed to earn our own money now, so we can pay for stuff just like you do. The colonisers still like to have someone to colonise, to bear them the still-preferred male children, to pay taxes and other bills, and as someone to blame. This took progress enshrined in law.

I myself find it hard to fathom how this was accomplished when women could not vote; and when, upon marriage, a woman's assets became her husband's, because women were not permitted to have assets. The most likely 'how' seems to be Lysistrata. But accomplished it was, and that gives me hope.

Why don't the colonizers conscript women to build the roads, to fight the wars, to be used however they please?

There are women building roads and fighting wars. Most of us don't want to!

But being used however the colonisers please? That's still going on in unenlightened circles, aided and abetted by the majority of the colonised.

I see. So all progress towards things that you support are always the result of the hard-working, active feminists tirelessly fighting their male overlords. It is never the case that progress is made by men and women being mutually supportive of their different roles in building a community.

Candid wrote:There are women building roads and fighting wars. Most of us don't want to!

I know most women don't want to, but you say that as a card-carrying feminist that you want equality. You want equality...but not if you don't want to. How nice and convenient.

Men build, men mine, men farm, men fish, men do jobs that require risk and physical labor that as you have stated woman don't want to do. What a weird thing for overlords to do for those whom they colonize.

Men commit physical violence at a much higher rate than women. You want to equalize that, but only if it means in one direction.

Men get longer prison sentences on average for the same crime as a woman. Want to equalize that?

90% of people in jail are "the colonizers". You want to equalize that, but not by having women participate equally. Again, only equality when it's convenient.

Males (the colonizers) are 3x more likely to commit suicide. You want to equalize that? Again, only the things you want.

Women live longer than men on average. Want to equalize that? Nah, most don't want to.

Just my opinion, but if a person is a card-carrying feminist that claims to fight for equality for women then they should actually fight for equality. Actual, across the board equality. Don't selectively cherry-pick the things you like or "want to" and conventionally discard or turn a blind eye to the rest.

The bottom line. There are systemic issues that impact both genders. There are inequalities, but (1) this is not always a bad thing, and (2) the solutions aren't as simple as just trying to make everything equal.