"Give Us The Freedom To Risk Rape"

[Howseitgoin]

Famed feminist Camille Paglia's interesting views on women's freedoms:

"Yes this is probably the most controversial area that I have written about.
From the start, when I became known in the early 1990s, this has been, my views on this subject have been highly inflammatory.

And I am coming to the subject from the point of view of a 1960s women, who, as a student, when I arrived as a freshman, my first year in 1964, the college, rebelled against the strict surveillance by the college administration of the lives of the women students.

This was the period that was called 'in loco parentis', that is, 'in place of the parents'. The college administrations felt that they had the obligation to supervise, to monitor, and protect the women students as they did not the male students.

Hence we had all girl dormitories and all male dormitories. The men could come and go at any hour of the day or night. We women had to sign in at 11 o'clock at night, so that the authorities of the college knew where. And we said, my generation rebelled, and called for an end to this practice. And they said, the world is dangerous, we have an obligation to protect you against rape. And what we said was 'give us the freedom to risk rape. That is true freedom'. That is what the sexual revolution gave to women.

Now, what will women do with the freedom? Feminism should have taken my view and said that 'now, you are an equal of a man and you must protect yourself as a man would. You must see the world as dangerous as a man would.' You must be as defensive and hyper-aware of your surroundings as a man would. Because men too are attacked for all kinds of things. Men too are the victims of crime and so on.

Instead, we've had this process of women calling for protections, a new paternalism, from the government and now from the college administrations again. They want to draw the parent figures back into their sex lives. This to me, is a major major fault of contemporary feminism. There are great responsibilities that come with freedom. And one of them is that you must take responsibility for your own defense."

Seems particularly relevant in terms of today's demand for 'women's private spaces'

Thoughts?

“Of course there are circumstances where we can manage safer accommodations via risk assessment in prisons & provide separate spaces in dom violence shelters & hospitals. But to imagine that's possible in public loos is impossible.”

Why have you spent threads now trying to dismiss laws that should be in place so that people have a clear understanding of what is expected of them?

Is it so impossible to believe that having a clear law is just one aspect of protection? You keep doubling down that we shouldn’t bother having laws that make sex segregation clear, and that it is moral panic to discuss why we need it and how we do it.

You have produced no evidence that is convincing to change away from safeguarding based on sex class. And you also seem to put huge stock in risk assessment.

Who benefits from these risk assessments? How do female people benefit from allowing any male person into a female single sex space?

And you're missing 'our' point. Sexual violence exists across the public and private spheres. Single sex spaces provide women and girls with some respite and safeguarding from this when we are at our most vulnerable.

It's funny OP doesn't seem able to grasp that safeguarding is a societal level applied risk assessment.

Only in some very limited & controlled environments. And that's not a 'point' but a fact.

Yes. This has been commented on previously. They also don’t understand consent. The argument that if women accept mix sex workplaces why do we demand single sex toilets made it very clear that they don’t understand consent and safeguarding. Nor legitimate or illegitimate discrimination. Particularly when they post about Human rights Article 8 without including the list of exceptions.

Quoting 'point' like that is simply a tactic to undermine what I've said. I was responding to your use of the word.

Yes, limiting access by men and controlling (or enforcing through law) adherence to that.

Just a reminder of how female toilet spaces are used.

Toilets are not just used behind a closed cubicle door. There are quite a few aspects of female toilet usage that happen in the public space, or even now still occur with a toilet door jammed open.

From my personal experience here is a list.

I have had to use the toilet while having a pram / pushchair jammed into the door with groceries.

I have had to have my mum use the public toilet because the disable toilet was not available and had her wheelchair jammed in the door because I couldn't leave her sit to move it and shut the door.

I have had breastmilk leaks / children's vomit / food spilled on my clothes and needed to have an unbuttoned top to dry the top under the hand drier.

I have come across other women quite regularly washing out their tops or their skirts etc and drying them enough to put back on .

I have friends who have miscarried in toilets and needed assistance and for that to be female people to make it more comfortable.

If you as a female person have not experienced these issues, that doesn't mean it is not happening. I am glad that you have never needed to do this things, it is uncomfortable and can be quite humiliating. But at least, in a female only toilet, it is a little better.

I think when people think of toilet usage, maybe they have never had to use the toilets in any other way other than behind a closed door. That is a privilege in that respect.

But the needs are still there and they are real for many female people to be able to engage in public life.

To allow any male person into such a space over the age of about 8 years old removes the usability of this space.

Demanding that all toilets are chaned into single cubicles means that the issues where women and girls need the extra space and privacy for everyday occurrences don’t go away. That style of toilet means female people will just self exclude because of a loss of provision. The gap under the doors are also still needed for safety.

So who benefits here from allowing a group of male people to access a female single sex space?

And just how is 'enforcing the law' working for us given dom & sexual violence is thru the roof?

You will always have a proportion who will say stuff the law. Crimes of 'passion' & all that….

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or pig headed here. Enforcing the right for single sex spaces to be single sex through law.

Yes. There will be those who break the law.

This has been explained to you over and over again. Having a law does not mean that people will not break the law.

It is comparable to saying we may as well not have laws around seat belts in cars. How is that working out given people speed and drive recklessly.

Dismissing the need for clarity around single sex space usage because there are laws around violence that are being ignored is not even logical. Society has always had laws around different aspects of issues knowing that enforcement may be an issue. It is not a reason not to have that law or policy.

Um, again law enforcement isn't going to solve the problem here as shown by the increasing rate people still offend even after they get out of prison.

The problem with the authoritarian mind set is they misguidedly believe they can punish their way out which never works & only makes the problem worse.

Not having a law because other laws are not being enforced properly is a very weak argument.

If people said it to express frustration that the other laws are not working so it is pointless because this one won’t either, I’d understand the frustration behind it. But this argument, in the context of all these other arguments, comes from a place of trying to convince female people that that should just accept a specific group of male people as being treated as if they were female.

But none of what has been presented is logical, consistent or even coherent.

@Helleofabore you are very patient!

Quoting from your post above, this has given me food for thought, thank you.

"I think when people think of toilet usage, maybe they have never had to use the toilets in any other way other than behind a closed door. That is a privilege in that respect."

Sure.

But the law makes it very clear what the behaviour of those male people is expected to be.

It comes across that you have a heavy personal investment in society allowing a specific group of male people access to female single sex provisions. Why?

How do you think society should be structured then? How do we encode behaviour and morality into the fabric of daily life? And what is the pathway from our current system to the new system you propose? How would you mitigate any suffering caused by the dismantling of existing structures?

Again I don't know if your obtuseness is deliberate - I am talking about how a law existing in the first place give guidance around behaviour and does prevent people from harming others (not all, obviously, there will always be people like yourself who push the boundaries).

I just can’t believe how many people make declarations like toilets are just for peeing in peace behind a closed door.

No. Female toilets have NEVER been just for that. Just the amount of times I have had to change clothes to get to work etc in a public toilet is enough for me to know what these spaces mean. I didn’t have an option but to get changed there because I couldn’t get home and to work or where ever in time.

If the toilets are filthy a cubicle is not an option. I have been without a home occasionally and have slept in my car. Public toilets are vital spaces for many people who have lives that don’t fit the norm.

It is just bonkers to see so many people dismiss needs that they don’t even think about because they don’t have to. But apparently, they are so very inclusive and loving and we inconvenient women are framed as ignorant and hateful.

I think that there is a whole of theory behind these posts. There seems little understanding of the realities of life as a female person. But the arguments are also just recycled arguments that we have seen on this board for year and years.

I'm not saying laws don't help, they clearly do as a preventative to an extent. But that's not the same in all circumstances as evidenced in comparisons between alike jurisdictions who have laws preventing trans women from using public bathrooms to those who don't. And the outcome was no increase in crime for the jurisdiction who permitted trans women following those laws being changed.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

So now we can have clear laws?

So what is your problem then?

If the law is clear, and we can then work on those laws being enforceable and a deterrent, we will go back to the way society operated toilets in the past. Where people used the toilet there for their sex and if they didn’t then there were ways to deal with that.

What is your actual issue?

And no. Massachusetts is not the UK. Just because there was a law change there does not mean that this situation is applicable in the UK.

Harms include:

Rape and sexual assault.

Violence.

Sexual abuse that is not rape or sexual assault.

Sexual abuse that also includes solo sexual acts or using the experience in future sexual acts.

Any other abuse that may include verbal abuse, intimidation in any way etc.

A male person's presence where female people need privacy and dignity.

A male person's presence where female people need to feel safe from any male person's presence (over the age of about 8 years old).

Female people self-excluding knowing that there may be a male person accessing that provision.

Safeguarding of female people is not limited to potential sex crimes or violent crimes, it includes a wide range of abusive behaviour and actions. It also covers the fact that female people need privacy and dignity.

Arguing about crime rates does not change the full range of considerations at all.

Love the waaaa let men into all the the spaces women are.

bla bla bla women get raped anyway

Ooo look men are rapists

Annnnd look laws dont protect women from sex offenders

Waaaa let men into the spaces with women

What was your winning argument?

Sexual violence is still rife despite punishment because the necessary condition to sexual violence isn't a permissive society but being alone & vulnerable to predators that think they won't get caught. Laws can't change that for a certain segment of the population.

So No

Lets just go with basis safeguarding.

Basic test:
Do you
• have a penis, or
• had a penis, or
• think you may have a penis?

If the answer is yes to the above question stay out of all and any Womans Single Sex Space.

See simple check no woman involved or persons harmed by the process.

Now the easy social accountability bit:

Failure to comply with the test or the result is a choice and the general public can decide the act of entry provides evidence of ill intent.

❤️

You keep on pointing out the logic and the reasons.
Not just on this thread but on others too.

Thank you

❤️

https://www.thetimes.com/article/e94f25d8-6221-4f69-8834-f77ab5dd280e?shareToken=6960a1d097fc1d5ce226bfdc8112b45f

"Women could sue organisations for harassment if they allow trans women into single-sex spaces under new equalities guidance that has been submitted to ministers."

This is relevant here.

And this:

"If a service provider chooses only to provide mixed-sex facilities, without a single-sex option, this could also count as either direct or indirect sex discrimination against women, especially if they are likely to be in a state of undress or cannot choose an alternative service."

Why is this important? Because if female people don't feel their facilities cover their legitimate needs, this can be said to be discrimination. Just because some people just want to pee and will do that behind just any closed door, doesn't mean that female people who need privacy and need the shared communal spaces to be single sex too shouldn't have a space suited to their needs.

Harm is not just about crimes. Harm covers so much more.

So, hopefully the final document will be similar to the previous notification and will state clearly that even toilets indicated as being for female people will have to exclude any male over the age of 8 (or I think it was 10) years old.

If any male entering that space otherwise to use that space, it will be considered as harassment.

And if it is considered harassment, it is an enforceable law or policy.

Not sure what the issue is with this continued 'but it won't 100% you, why do it' or 'look this law changed but no real increase in reported sex crime was reported' (while the paper fully admits that a huge % of crime against women simply doesn't get reported in the first place) is supposed to prove. It is just sparple at this point.

Why? Are you saying that men are so evil they will deliberately invade female spaces to assault women and girls so we should make all our spaces mixed sex. How will making all spaces mixed sex protect women and girls? Or are you saying women should just accept men will rape them and stop complaining? Why do you hate women so much. Who hurt you?