"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?

The 'added problem' of women being scrutinised in toilets, if it is in fact worthy of the term 'problem' (I have yet to see evidence outside a handful of anecdotes) will be a result of TRAs staying they will defy the rules. If women could have a reasonable level of confidence that only other women would be using the women's toilets, there would be less need for vigilance, and the 'added problem' becomes even less of a problem.

I agree, it's what peaked me. When I asked these questions and was told it was a case of a few men needing to unlearn their privilege - that's gone well, hasn't it 😂

the necessary condition to sexual violence isn't a permissive society but being alone & vulnerable to predators that think they won't get caught.

You are ignoring how TRA demands that men can enter women's spaces have had a chilling effect on the ability of bystanders to challenge and intervene when a man walks into the women's loos. Being able to challenge a man entering a women's loo undermines his belief that he won't get caught.

One reason why reports didn't go up after the law change would be that, where women used to report a man in the women's loos as a problem, they now can't because the bearded bloke might claim he's a woman, so the number of that type of report fell to zero.

Yes. Imagine removing a mechanism for reporting while then declaring there is not increase.

The team behind the study state that they used 'matched' pairs, yet when you look at the figures in that study, it shows the area that they are comparing against has a higher rate of those complaints to the one from the outset from the one they state is 'matched'. That is an indication that there is something impacting the figures in the area compared to the one they are using as a stellar example.

There WAS an increase in the data collected, after the law passed the figures did go up but were considered 'statistically insignificant'.

I have asked this poster to post the data that fed that paper that really doesn't say what the poster wants it to say. They cannot. Yet they keep on posting it over and over again.

So, it really continues that the question has to be asked.

How many additional women and girls being attacked or harmed in anyway in female single sex spaces are acceptable to you before we can expect to exclude ALL male people above the age of 8 years old?

And every time that paper is linked from now, I will ask this question.

What’s the name of that bloke that pushes a boulder up a mountain but it rolls back down when he’s reached the top so he has to start again and again? Howsitgoin is different to him as I think the roller in the story thinks he’s getting somewhere at some point. This poster is never getting anywhere, repeating the same (bad) ‘evidence’ and not engaging with the facts in return. If anything the summit is now higher and the boulder hasn’t even started rollin.

It makes the mountain more visible to more people, so there’s that.

Why are you so bothered about loos OP? I am bothered because the design of single sex toilets is of benefit to both sexes in improving the outcome in medical emergencies, and preventing assaults ie. anyone at their most vulnerable. I am talking about sexual assault numbers, voyeurism, drug overdoses, self harm, heart attacks, invisible disabilities such as brain injuries, epilepsy, diabetes, pots, asthma, deafness etc.

Why are you so bothered @Howseitgoin ?

@Keeptoiletssafe

Sisyphus

Sisyphus.

If you can't comprehend the consequences of authoritarianism which have been obvious here I can't help you.

Lets be fair even if KTS was a world authority on authoritarianism and the consequences you are highly unlikely to be of assistance in KTS [(edit) aim ] of Keeping Toilets Safe.

KTS is looking at construction and safeguarding at the initial design phase. So building regs, manafactures design etc
Asking basic questions about what will be a good or bad change and what could save lives.
Its fact based evidence.

Explain it to me like I was 10.

Read the thread like logic would dictate.

So you can’t explain it then.

Now now. Use our nice kind words remember. Please explain your reasoning.

I can indeed…it's in the thread. 🤡

It's your bloody thread mate!

At least do the women here who are still working on the assumption you are posting in good faith the decency of engaging with them rather than insulting them.

FFS.

So it is authoritarian to have toilets segregated by sex.

Let's get this right again. Here is the list, not in order, but the list of the arguments used so far.

It is authoritarian to have toilets segregated by sex.

There is no 'right' to have toilets segregated by sex.

The law is useless to have because it is not 100% effective in blocking harm to female people.

Female people are often alone with male people at work. ( ignoring that those female people have consented to being in a work environment with male people and that work place has safeguarding responsibilities)

Female people choose to have the freedom to risk rape so therefore they should accept male people in their female single sex provisions.

Male people with transgender identities get attacked in male toilets so female people must allow them access to female toilets. (based on a study with 369 trans people vs 435 061 people who were not trans identified where the figures reported used a wide range of harm and the word 'included'.)

There is no such thing really as 'sex' and if a male person has a cavity inserted into his groin, by a poor interpretation of an American dictionary that is enough to give that person the right to say they are female. And we can only assume that means that they should ignore the laws because this makes them dictionary authorised to say they are female.

Female people being asked if they are in the correct toilet for them, which has been happening for decades, is now supposedly a new phenomenon and it means that male people should be allowed into female toilets.

Apparently, blocking puberty of male people means that all male body cues are no longer detectable by female people.

Female people attack other female people.

Have I missed any?

I don't think anyone is of that assumption anymore BB.

So you are not able.

You revert to your trite personal attacks which only serve to highlight your rudeness and lack of ability to engage in good faith.

Fair point!

@Howseitgoin

How many additional women and girls being attacked or harmed in anyway in female single sex spaces are acceptable to you before we can expect to exclude ALL male people above the age of 8 years old?

Hows may as well start a thread with the title "Let me list the ways in which I can insult the posters of Mumsnet"

It is actually a short list. It is the same tactic over and over and over again.

Yeah, but we could give suggestions, help mix it it up a bit. I'm bored of the current insults, Hows needs new material.

You see that’s the point @Howseitgoin

Logic dictates single sex spaces for health and safety. I have explained that carefully in several threads, demonstrating why. Many posters have. You can’t answer me and, when you do, you respond with ‘fancy’ phrases and now a clown emoji.

How’s it going? Not that well for you - if you were one of my students, your answers would be a straight fail. Try harder to explain, please.