"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?

I can list lots of real life examples where people went to the toilet when they were:
Choking in a restaurant and got embarrassed.
Feeling ill/nauseous so went to the toilet in case they vomited, not realising the signs of heart failure.
Feeling like they needed to poo, but strained hard and had a cardiac arrest.
Feeling critically mentally ill.
Needed to take drugs but ODed.
High/drunk.
Had a medically emergency related to their invisible disability/illness that caused them to collapse resulting in a lack of oxygen. After only 4 minutes you can start getting brain damage.

I have more but the above are not in any order but are the most common ways people die in a toilet cubicle which I can verify. There’s no nuance in the above.

Single sex toilet designs can have door gaps. They are the simple feature where others can instantly see and hear someone is in trouble and get help asap which can save a life.

There is another list I have about women, girls and boys being raped in toilets. I am not going to detail this as I don’t know where this post would end up. It involves incidents in schools, trains, hospitals, supermarkets, workplaces, nightclubs, pubs, restaurants, shopping centres, stations…

Again, having single sex toilet designs with door gaps are a simple feature where others can instantly see and hear someone is in trouble. This means the design can prevent an attack happening in the first place as perpetrators don’t like witnesses.

The design needs to be single sex as to have door gaps the area in front will be single sex too.

Single sex designs have been replaced by ‘gender neutral’ designs which are always private and also more sound resistant, as are all mixed sex toilets.

Anyone can be affected but it’s the most vulnerable that suffer most. Wanting people to be safe is not hate nor a real world harm.

All these incidents above involve thousands each year. Not crumbs.

Toilets are worth scrutiny because of the human cost.

The fail in logic where someone’s sex category is determined by situation highlights that a male person cannot be considered a female person.

If a male person cannot be immediately housed in a female prison estate, without a risk assessment, then no male people are female people. Even the highest risk female prisoners will be housed in a female section of a prison. There is no need to evaluate whether they are ‘female’ enough.

If a male person cannot meet the criteria of being female for sporting events, then the logic that some male people are female is inherently flawed. A female person will immediately be able to access a female sports category and subject to drug testing will not be excluded based on sex category.

If one male person with a transgender identity can be correctly sexed in a court because they are a rapist, then no other male person’s demand to use wrong sex language needs to be accepted.

That a poster has acknowledged that in reality they accept that male people are not women and that it is dependant on situation, shows the discordance of their other posts. No female person is considered to be not female depending on the situation.

The inherent failure of the arguments just keep mounting up.