"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?

Its a wedge

If you are "OK" with the risk of rape why should you object to having single sex spaces for anything.

This was an "argument" used to allow men into womens prisons in the UK. If one can get the State with a much higher duty of care to women prisioners to agree that the women should be forced to provide companionship to men, one has removed any moral or ethical authority the State has in objecting to men allowed anywhere.

Eg the Scottish government who triggered the Equality Act case was going to pass legislation for victims of sexual assault. TRA wanted the State to use the word gender not sex in the Act.

This could result in the State employing a male who would claim he was female and carry out a medical exam on a victim. This employee ignores the victims consent ( she/he would only let the exam be undertaken by a female). The employee goes to Court and uses the evidence of sexual assaulted to convict an offender. The employee under oath says that he placed objects and his body parts on or inside the victim knowing he had not obtained consent.

The expectation from TRAs was that a man would choose to do this. And if he did that the law should protect him after all he said he was a woman and its the victims fault if she/he fails to see the women he claims he is.

So go on, explain how exactly a transwoman differs from a man. Both are male. I assume you won’t be using sexist outdated stereotypes like liking pink or things mostly attributed to girls. Because that works be stupid wouldn’t it?

I think your argument here rests on an acceptance that women being harassed and scrutinised in toilets is a prevalent and significant issue. Even those most enthusiastic about trying to persuade us this is a problem for women are only able to come up with a handful of anecdotes of women being mildly challenged, and easily allaying fears by speaking to their challenger.
In reality, people don't challenge people in toilets very much at all. This is why TW have been able to use them historically, and why even with the heightened awareness if the issue, they are still going round posting pictures of themselves there, or as India Willoughby has recently done, regaling us with tales of how 'nothing happens' when India uses women's facilities.

In the last thread the OP claimed it was all down to "temperament". Transwomen's temperament is more like that of women.

So we have left your initial argument that female single sex spaces are restrictive to the freedom for women and have now moved to female single sex spaces are restrictive to the freedom for transwomen ( but necessary for the freedom for women which you ignore all the time when we point it out to you)

Probably still thinks certain temperaments are female coded.

Howseitgoin · Yesterday 06:00
'But trans women don't behave like women, so this isn't the winning argument you seem to think it is."
They tend to exhibit a temperament more common in females not to mention their expressions & inclinations are more female coded than men.

That article is from 2015 iff he was jailed now he wouldn't get moved to a female prison as regardless of any hormones he took or surgery he has had hes a man

That's because it destroys any and all arguments for allowing men with special identities into women anything

Transwomen are men so yes you want to allow men interested female single sex spaces and the answer is no

The evidence shows that transgender women are much more likely to be convicted of sex related offences than men in general

there is no getting away from that

and it doesn’t matter anyway

.we have male and female separated for lots of reasons and a man’s feelings never had been a legitimate reason for them to break those boundaries

if you want to show how bad transpeople can be - carry on. Carry on trying to get access to vulnerable women - it’s a really good look

for lurkers - you know many ( possibly most ) people with trans identities are not like our charmer here. Please don’t base your opinion of transgender people on the odd ones - I don’t think OP is deliberately trying to make transgender people appear bad ( I would just report in that case ) but they are doing the transgender case no favours

Following on from Paglia's comments, I think safetyism is necessary but can go too far. I agree private spaces for women are necessary where actual risk is probable so men shouldn’t be included but men aren't a risk to women as the data shows so should be for their safety from men. Its also problematic to exclude men because its created a culture of scrutiny on women in general. Who is sufficiently 'feminine' isn't deemed a risk. See where this is going?

Hummmmm.....
At a guess men in womens spaces so women then dont have private spaces.

for clarity:

• if men shouldn't be included - nor should 'trans women' as a transwoman is a man.

True

• there is the same % risk to women from 'transwomen' as there is from the general male population - not surprising because 'transwomen' are men.

True

The only way this is not true is when TRA begin to play the sex offender cant be an actual self-identifying Transgender Identifying Male [ "TIM" ] because the TRA decided the TIM can not be a TIM

Now if someone wants to prove that the UK sex offender prison population shows something different please feel free using the public official data with links to the sources👍

• allowing men to pretend to be women and access women's spaces normalises men in women's spaces and makes it 1,000x easier for those with nefarious ulterior motives to have access to their victims...

True

• putting men into a woman's space makes it mixed sex - by definition it can no longer be a women's space if 'transwomen' are allowed in as 'transwomen' are men.

True

The Scottish Government took this one to Court and lost🤷‍♀️

Before you take the fence down Paglia love, have a check why it was put up in the first place.

Also check your neighbours are happy with you giving their privacy away.

And anyway if it is their fence ....

No way!!! How did I miss that gem of sexism. @Howseitgoin fid you mean that to be so misogynistic or was that an error?

I don't like it when people make these claims as it states the obvious without any thought to the complexity of the topic.

It's obvious that a rapist is responsible for his actions but that doesn't mean that people have 0% responsibility to prevent a rape occurring. How much responsibility is a difficult question.

I think it's fair to say that you have a responsibility to prevent yourself from getting beaten up. It wouldn't be responsible behaviour to walk up to a group of yobs in balaclavas late at night and ridicule their mother's. It's also fair to say you have a responsibility to prevent your house from being burgled or your car from being stolen. In fact you are expected to do this by your insurance company.

That doesn't mean if you are the victim of a crime that you are the bad actor, or that malevolence has played any part in your actions in being caught out as a victim, so when I hear people keep saying that women aren't responsible for their own safety, my question would be, then who is? Are you leaving that down to the men who you consistently belittle and criticise?

Obviously each situation and scenario has its own individual characteristics but in a world where we KNOW that bad people exist and are out there waiting to take advantage of us then to state that we shouldn't care for our own safety or that we don't have a duty to protect ourselves against evil is just plain wrong, no matter how you look at it.

So in terms of blame and responsibility then of course the bad actor, in this case the rapist, overwhelmingly shoulders the burden responsibility for his actions as its an awful crime to commit. However, we could help to reduce the numbers of women suffering if we'd only start viewing it the same way we see other crimes of a violent nature and not through the naive and child like lens I see too often on here.

Regarding punishment it's correct we have the criminal justice system, but social stigma can have a very negative affect also and I think it's a good thing that men who commit sexual offences are shamed in the community to the fullest extent possible as for many this alone will act as a good deterant.

No, he/they/she really do seem to believe this to be true!!!

Perhaps hasn't engaged with many women in real life, or perhaps can't read people very well.

Went on about it at length in the other thread. Although does seem to be touchy about us highlighting previous posts, so brace for another round of petty deletions later.

Freedom brings responsibility. However, a society which has the rule of law protects its citizens from harm wherever possible hence women only spaces should exist in societies run by the rule of law.

Oh he meant to be. He’s pretty rubbish at hiding just how sexist ‘trans’ is

it’s reminding me of the straight up MRAs we used to get round these parts back in the ‘teens, before they all donned blouses and eye liner

Responsibility for an action one has no control over eg the baby in the babygrow?

Or a obligation to safeguard ones self to the best if ones ability by taking counter measures if possible?

The difference :

I don't like it when people make these claims as it states the obvious without any thought to the complexity of the topic.

It's obvious that a rapist is responsible for his actions but that doesn't mean that people have 0% obligation to safeguard against a rape occurring. How much safeguarding is a difficult question.

I think it's fair to say that you have a to safeguard to prevent yourself from getting beaten up. It wouldn't be safeguarding behaviour to walk up to a group of yobs in balaclavas late at night and ridicule their mother's. It's also fair to say you have an obligation to safeguard to prevent your house from being burgled or your car from being stolen. In fact you are expected to do this by your insurance company.

That doesn't mean if you are the victim of a crime that you are the bad actor, or that malevolence has played any part in your actions in being caught out as a victim, so when I hear people keep saying that women aren't obliged to act to safeguard their own safety, my question would be, then who is? Are you leaving that down to the men who you consistently belittle and criticise?

Obviously each situation and scenario has its own individual characteristics but in a world where we KNOW that bad people exist and are out there waiting to take advantage of us then to state that we shouldn't care for our own safety or that we don't have a duty to protect ourselves against evil is just plain wrong, no matter how you look at it.

So in terms of blame and responsibility then of course the bad actor, in this case the rapist, overwhelmingly shoulders the burden responsibility for his actions as its an awful crime to commit. However, we could help to reduce the numbers of women suffering if we'd only start viewing it the same way we see other crimes of a violent nature and not through the naive and child like lens I see too often on here.

Regarding punishment it's correct we have the criminal justice system, but social stigma can have a very negative affect also and I think it's a good thing that men who commit sexual offences are shamed in the community to the fullest extent possible as for many this alone will act as a good deterant.

It really isn't. The MoJ data shows that transwomen in prison are more likely to be sex offenders than the non-trans male prison population by a considerable margin.

Talking about conspiracy theorists.

The Vatican as the leadership of 1.2 billion people is "the Far Right" and is controlled by one woman.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5400311-5400311-jkr-didnt-have-an-opinion-she-poisoned-the-well

That would almost be funny if nutjobs in the US were not shooting children over their Faith.

If it makes a difference and you prefer to use the term safeguard instead of responsibility then that's fine. I don't know why we can't just all be grown ups and call a spade a spade. I think it's largely down to the type of people who are eager to jump on and label people victim blamers when that isn't what's being said and they know it. No one in the right mind would ever blame a woman for being raped in the same category as the rapist or infer any kind of malevolent action being taken by being raped. Too often than not it's used as a way to silence those who might give advice to those who they see as at risk of placing themselves in harms way unnecessarily and of being at a higher risk than others of being victims. I've heard people claiming to have been raped on numerous occasions by a different man each time and instead of recognising that these are vulnerable women who need help to help themselves people label the person trying to help a victim blamer and they double down telling the victim to continue doing what they're doing because men shouldn't rape!

For some being "Responsible" is seen as being "Accountable" for the failure as well as any sucess.

"If she (or he ) had not said or or had not done something or had said or had done something the rape would not have happened."

The judge who said women in jeans could not be raped, the defense team who said her choice underwear ment she was going to have sex anyway so it could not be rape etc. all push the ownership on to the woman who once it began could not have stop the attack.

Saying we have a obligation to safeguard or duty to protect ourselves from harm removes the accoubtability element from the discussion. And recognises that once the attack began the victim is unable to determine the outcome.

Its a more compassionate (?) way to begin teaching women about safeguarding and their personal "blind spots" when it comes to protecting themselves.

Is this any different from

"She was asking for it wearing that skirt!"

Same old victim-blaming, surely?