Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WSJ: Feminists Cause Rape...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Women » Feminists Group Donate to DU
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 09:49 AM
Original message
WSJ: Feminists Cause Rape...
Run Date: 04/26/06
By Jennifer L. Pozner
WeNews commentator

A recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal promotes the idea that men are essentially violent and women just have to learn to deal with it. Media critic Jennifer L. Pozner calls it a dangerous response to the problem of sex assault.

...

Naomi Schaefer Riley declares women "moronic" for "engaging in behavior" that makes them rape-magnets and feminists responsible for turning women into morons in the first place. She bashes rape and murder victims as too stupid to prevent their attacks and paints an entirely false picture of campus feminist education and advocacy programs.

Learning that DNA evidence links Darryl Littlejohn--the bouncer charged in the high-profile rape and murder of New York graduate student Imette St. Guillen--to a prior sexual assault, Schaefer Riley concludes not that serial rapists must be stopped, but that women should "use a little more common sense" lest they get themselves attacked.

"Ms. St. Guillen was last seen in a bar, alone and drinking at 3 a.m. on the Lower East Side of Manhattan," Shaefer Riley writes, and "more than a few of us have been thinking that a 24-year-old woman should know better."

It's hard to imagine that many intelligent adults would look at that brutal rape and homicide and think, "Wow, what a stupid dead girl." But that's the company she keeps. Schaefer Riley's early writing on religion was subsidized by the John M. Olin Foundation, which--before it closed in 2005--gave hundreds of thousands to help female writers such as Christina Hoff Sommers, author of "Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women," produce highly inaccurate polemics and media programs foment the idea that feminists whine too much about rape, that date rape is a "myth" and that the Violence Against Women Act is unnecessary.

Dismisses the Duke Controversy

The author also dismisses the controversy surrounding the 27-year-old African American student and exotic dancer who alleges she was raped by white Duke University lacrosse players as simply "much hand-wringing about the alleged rape of a stripper."

MORE...
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2718
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. "...media programs foment the idea...that date rape is a "myth"
that's nuts. And are these people supposedly Christians? I think they are crazy.


"Feminists, she claims, tell college students that "if a woman is forced against her will to have sex, it is 'not her fault' and that women always have the right to 'control their own bodies.'""


And someone disagrees with that? And would put their name to it. It's mind-boggling.


So maybe women should just stay away from men entirely - build conclaves of women only towns and cities (someone did that in Africa). I guess that would be an answer. Men would be shot on sight. No rapes then - at least no men on women rapes. It would reduce the population, also.

:sarcasm: (obviously)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. It is absolutely nuts...
Edited on Thu Apr-27-06 10:29 AM by Triana
...this is what I mean when I talk about a society that basically condones rape and absolves men from any responsibility for their own actions. As if they're unable to control themselves. They are able to control themselves. Society and the legal system does not require them to though, so many of them just don't - because they don't have to.

Women are put in the position of having to compensate by living like prisoners in their own bodies - bodies which many men want to control, since they're not required to control their own, they want to control womens' instead. How irresponsible and arrogant can we get?

Remarkable, the human animal. And I don't mean that in a good way. When you think that this species is at the top of the food chain, it's pretty scary since there are factions of them that seemingly have just mastered walking upright.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
24. It's very selective, you'll notice
This idea of lack of control. When it comes to the important bastions of power: military, government, commerce, the remote control etc., men are perceived to be these ultimate masters of rational thought and action. Women, with our hormonally-based emotional natures, cannot possibly be entrusted with such matters of grave importance.

But when it comes to the base sexual urges, why, it's a TOTALLY different story! Can't possibly expect the poor dears to control themselves. They are ENSLAVED by their libidos, dontcha know. It is then that we gals become the rational actors, charged with reigning in the behavior of the poor, hapless dudes with our feminine guile.

And we're expected to pull the whole thing off while being thin, sexy, and appropriately non-threatening.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Great observation and welcome to DU!
Your post points out one of the great double standards women live under - hormones in women = bad, hormones in men = good. You could pretty much substitute anything in women = bad, anything in men = good.

Thanks for making the observation and welcome to DU and, in particular, the FG. Glad you found us so early in your visit here. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. excellent observation....
Edited on Fri Apr-28-06 10:49 AM by Triana
...I don't buy that their supposedly superior talents for rational thought and action (which I also don't buy) suddenly fly out the window when they get an erection or are attracted to someone -- or when they just want to exercise power and control over someone.

Women are expected to do everything twice as good as a man to be considered as good, and we have to LOOK good doing it, too - AND be nonthreatening to their poor witto male insecurities.

Who is really the 'weaker sex'? It's men when it's to their advantage to be, and women when it isn't.

Edit: Welcome to DU bytheway. Look forward to more posts from you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Welcome to DU.
Excellent observation. I'm going to remember to use this point in future discussions. Thank you.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. We hold these truths to be self-evident...
"if a woman is forced against her will to have sex, it is 'not her fault' and that women always have the right to 'control their own bodies.'"

How anybody can disagree with this is beyond me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. ????????
beats me. I can't grok the neanderthal mentality either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Macho mentality?
Edited on Thu Apr-27-06 01:59 PM by ThomCat
Among guys you often find that everything is a competition. The loser is guilty of being weak. The winner is not responsible for anything he does to the loser, becuase that's the right of the winner. The right to lord it over the loser and the right to be a bully.

I guess that same attitude is also applies to women? :shrug: But girls and women are defined as weaker, as losers, automatically simply because they are girls/women.

edited for spelling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Many people (even some women like the lunatic mentioned
in the OP) think the way you described in your first paragraph.

Disgusting, but true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
undergroundpanther Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-29-06 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
29. Someytimes I wonder if
There was a place like that.. I'd move there.

Really,I HATE this world and I really am tired of all the gender shit ,rapist violence,sexism . So if the women of this city were not into making others be a gender I'd be maybe happier there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-18-06 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. I would love to live in a community where the women set the rules....
peaceful methods are used to settle arguments; emphasis on increasing one's intelligence (as opposed to breast size), child care at places of employment, business is conducted in a fair way....a good product at a reasonable price; education is highly valued, and food is unprocessed. Men that are enlightened are welcome...but no buffoons that are difficult, annoying, and time-consuming.

When Dolly the sheep was cloned, I began to think that men were obsolete. After all, they seemed to be making this world unlivable...all the chemicals poisoning our soil, water, and air; the constant wars; all the money that's wasted on war that could instead be used for education, housing, and health care; the corporate structure and resulting dog-eat-dog capitalism. Men seemed to have outlived their usefulness and were just ruining everything with their their tiresome tirades and constant destruction.





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
antigone382 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-04-06 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
31. Better yet, make the men stay home all the time.
Edited on Thu May-04-06 10:39 PM by antigone382
If men are just naturally violent, maybe they should be the ones that have to pay for it, and not us.

Maybe MEN should be the ones who must stay home after dark, so that they don't have the opportunity to prowl around looking for victims...

Maybe MEN's sexual behavior should be restricted--no more porno's, strippers, or toys--so that they aren't tempted to rape...

Maybe MEN should have to forego partaking in alcoholic beverages or other mood-altering substances, so that they will have full control of body and mind and be less likely to let their libidos get the better of them...

Maybe MEN should be kept away from anyone who is physically weaker than them, be it women, children, the elderly, or the disabled, so that if they do lose their fragile sense of self-control, they won't be able to overpower those around them...

How about it? Let's turn the de facto restrictions on women into de jure restrictions on men--after all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? If men are the dangerous, out-of-control sex fiends that people like this lady claim they are, they really ought to be held to a more strict standard of behavior, right??? They should have to plan their lives around their own moral weakness, rather than women who aren't to blame.

Of course, anyone would admit that this is a patently unfair proposal...but if it's unfair to expect men to live in this way, why isn't it unfair to expect the same from women?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geniph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Hoo boy, can you imagine the whining?
If we actually tried to place those restrictions on men, the whining would be deafening - let's ignore the fact that women have implicit restrictions on their actions ALL THE TIME.

Wow, that proposal is really perspective-altering. Very thought-provoking!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. Only thing I can feel/think/do at this moment is
:banghead:

Arg. Stupic god damned frickin' idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geniph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. Oh, okay, so the little girl whose father rapes her
Edited on Thu Apr-27-06 12:38 PM by geniph
at home in her own bed was "engaging in behavior" that made her a "rape magnet" and feminists are responsible for "turning her into a moron." The nice elderly lady whose house is broken into by a serial rapist should have "known better." The woman whose abusive ex-boyfriend breaks in and attacks her should blame feminist principles for the damage.

My short response: fuck you, Naomi Shaefer Riley. I wouldn't wish forcible rape on anyone, but you are testing my principles to the limit.

:mad:

That's the stupidest, least logical, and least humane argument I've heard in years. I suppose we should just start the honor killings; people like this will never be satisfied until they get to throw rocks at the woman in the stocks wearing the scarlet A again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Honor Killings...
...the American Taliban would love that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Heddi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
8. Does Naomi post on DU?
I swear her arguments are turning up quite frequently in the recent spate of Rape threads, i.e.:

those "boys" must be considered innocent until proven guilty, yet that stupid whore is lying through her teeth. I know it.

there is no evidence to their guilt and it is wrong to assume their guilt. That stupid lying whore, on the other hand....

She was "just" assaulted with a broomstick. What's the big deal?

I've seen strippers use broomsticks and WORSE in their routines. It's how they get more money

Broomstick insertion (as well as other objects) is quite common during strip routines

what did she expect? she was a stripper going to a house with 40+ drunk guys. She should have been more cautious

Can strippers even BE raped? Can prostitutes? I don't think they can

Even if she was raped (which I don't think she was), she's just making it harder for other rape victims to come out

I doubt she was raped; here's a website that says that over 80% of rape cases are false accusations

etc
etc
etc

At the rate conversations re: rape are going at DU these days, I believe Naomi would not only find herself in sound company, but she would be applauded and lauded and dozens of posters (all with disabled profiles) would line up to sponsor her membership to this fine site. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I'm sorry to say that you are probably right.
x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Heddi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
12. How many self-loathing women are self-loathing
(especially with regards to rape and other violent/sexual crimes) because they have such fear of becoming "one of them"

let me explain--spelling may be horrible because nails are long and haven't had a chance to clip them :)

For some people, there is a certain type of morality involved with rape. Women who take the time to be aware of their surroundings, who lock their doors, who dress appropriately, who don't put themselves in bad situations--these are the women who "should not" be raped. They have taken precautions. When a woman is raped, it can be assumed that no precautions, or not enough precautions were taken. She was not aware of her surroundings. She did not lock her doors. She did not dress or act appropriately. She put herself in a bad situation.

A person is able to remove the threat of rape (or violence, or divorce, etc) if they wrap themselves in the blanket of belief that "I am cautious, therefore, I am not to be preyed upon. Anyone who is preyed upon is not cautious". It's an easy logical fallacy to make, akin to:

Hamburger is made of meat. Therefore, all meat is hamburger

By setting caveats for rape, they can form separate groups within society:

Those who are cautious will not be raped

Those who are not cautious will be raped

It makes it easy, then, to demonize those who are raped--not because they were raped, but because they were not cautious. It shows a lack of forethought and planning, a lack of intelligence, a lack of self-worth or love of self/others. If a woman loved her children enough, she would not have taken a job at night which made her walk to her car in a dark parkinglot which made her get raped by a prowler. She should have had more sense.

In demonizing others for their lack of cautiousness, the woman can then feel better about herself because she *IS* cautious. She locks her doors. She does not go out at night. She does not put herself in a bad situation. She is aware of her surroundings. She is better than them. She loves herself/others more than they do. She is smarter. SHe is more forward thinking.

Another way of self-loathing goes beyond being cautious. Perhaps the woman was cautious, but she was of ill repute. The standard then goes from "why did she put herself in that situation" to "why did she make choices in her life that allowed her to lead a life like that"

One poster, who has not been banned, made the comment in one of the numerous rape threads that she could NOT feel sorry for any stripper, exotic dancer, or prostitute who was raped because, by being a stripper, exotic dancer, or prostitute, she (the raped) was encouraging the rape of other women every day and was getting some sort of karmic-payback for taking part in the oppression of women.

That line of thinking allows a self-loathing woman to say "Well, she did take precautions, but she made bad decions previously in her life that allowed her to be seen not as a person, but as a vagina" It allows for further separation:

Those who are cautious will not be raped

Those who are not cautious will be raped

as well as

Those who made good decisions will not be raped

Those who made bad decisions will be raped

So now these self-loathing women can separate themselves from the "others" in two categories: I am cautious, and I made good decisions, therefore I will not be raped.

Again, logical fallacy akin to:

Hamburger is made from meat. Hamburger comes from cows. Therefore, all meat from cows is hamburger.

Self-loathing women then further parse out life and lifestyle particulars to separate themselves from "the others":

I live in a good neighborhood and I will not be raped

I have a good life and I will not be raped

etc

They continue to parse down each individual aspect of life until they finally reach the point to where they are back to two separate groups:

I will not be raped because I am me
They will be raped because they are not me

It's simplistic thinking that evolved from complex thought. It allows for ascention of the ego. It shows that anyone who is not me is not worthy to be me because they do not hold the attributes that I have. By not being me, they are not me, and by being them, they will never have the protection I have by being me and all that encompases me and the safety that me brings to me. Therefore, I will never be them, and they will never be me. By being them, they are less forward thinking than I am, are not as cautious as I am, have made bad decisions taht I have not made, do not love self/others as much as I do, do not live in the neighborhood I do, etc.

Again, simplistic thinking that saves them from facing the horrors of the world.

When self-loathing women are approached with questions like:

Well what about the old lady whose house was broken into and was raped?
What about the 5-year old who was molested by her father?

How could they have prevented their fate?

The self-loathing woman will publically say that "those situations are different," but will really think back to the "must not love self/others as much as I do". In these situations, the self-loathing woman may not blame the victims in this case. In fact, the self-loathing woman may increase her scope of blame:

Perhaps the children of the old woman should have watched after her more.
Perhaps the old woman should have been living in a facility where she did not face this danger

and

Perhaps the mother of the child should not have married a man who would molest children
Perhaps the mother of the child should have been paying attention to the warning signs of child molestation

For the self-loathing woman, the only innocent is herself and any accused. The raped always hold some blame, either directly or indirectly through the choices/decisions of others.

for the self-loathing woman, the ultimate victim is the rapist, who must live his life downplaying the hourly temptations put forth by women who are not aware of their surroundings, who do not love self/others, who made bad decisions, who live in a bad neighborhood, whose children or parents do not care enough to make better choices in their behalf.

For the self loathing woman, it's all figured out. And it makes thinking that much simpler
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geniph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Right, Heddi, and well put
anything to avoid blaming, oh, I don't know, maybe the CRIMINAL who commits the CRIME of assaulting and raping someone? The victim always has to be seen as somehow to blame for not keeping the rapist from being moved to commit the rape. Every one of those types of arguments is utterly specious - all one has to do is to point out the many, many, many multitudes of men who can watch exotic dancers/live with young girls/see an unlocked door/catch a glimpse of female flesh and yet, somehow, are NEVER moved to commit rape and assault.

If it were truly the fault of the victim (puke!), then how does one explain the men who can view pornography, get a lap dance, etc., without ever wishing to do harm to a woman?

No, the fault is WITH THE RAPIST. The criminal CHOOSES to commit the crime. What the victim did or did not do is COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. There are a number of good points in your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #12
23. Spot on. Well said.
Great post. Really captures the cognitive dissonance at work in the thought processes of these self-loathing women. But sometimes the unthinkable does happen to them, despite their elaborate precautions. A woman could circumcribe her existence to the nth degree but it's not necessarily going to prevent some sadistic criminal from breaking into her house, as you said. Or, gawd forbid, may she slip up for a minute and let her guard down. Have a few drinks and let the "nice boy" drive her home and invite him in. What then? She has predicated her self image on this false illusion of control and now it's blown away.

Rape is vastly underreported and I think this self loathing thing is definitely a factor in it. In addition to all the other ordeals women go through navigating the legal system and the blaming and shaming they encounter from authorities and people in their lives, there is also this element of self blame and denial in many women. They just pretend it didn't happen or re-frame it as something else, which still affords them the ability to judge other women and maintain their illusions. And they'll judge those "other" women even more harshly because they don't dare admit their own experience. I believe there are a huge number of women walking around carrying the trauma of rape who refuse to label it as such. It's so incredibly sad. Sadder still, they'll pass this self-hatred and shame onto their daughters and perpetuate the cycle. I'm not blaming these women at all for this. Society definitely reinforces and rewards this attitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
13. Women like Naomi S. Riley make me ashamed of my sex
She's a totally male centered and male identified daddy's little pet who can't understand what all the fuss is about simply because it's never happened to her. Not yet.

Denial makes this sort of woman feel more comfortable and in control and less vulnerable. It's also very dangerous to them, because when it finally does happen to them, they are doubly devastated.

I just wish publications would realize this and stop publishing this woman hating bullshit from women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geniph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Don't be ashamed of your sex,
be angry at the quislings among us!

Someone referred to a similar female in an earlier thread as a "pants-warmer" - the one who sucks up to the menfolk without ever pulling her share of the household load among the women. I think there's a lot to that theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. HAHAH!
That was me!

It's an Irish expression and every big extended family seemed to have one.

Thanks for remembering the story! That made my day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
geniph Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. This one definitely strikes me as a pants-warmer
and I loved that story, that's why I remembered it. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. "I just wish publications would realize..."
This is exactly what the Wall Street Journal was looking for. I expect she is well paid for her heresy.


"Schaefer Riley's early writing on religion was subsidized by the John M. Olin Foundation, which--before it closed in 2005--gave hundreds of thousands to help female writers such as Christina Hoff Sommers, author of "Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women," produce highly inaccurate polemics and media programs foment the idea that feminists whine too much about rape, that date rape is a "myth" and that the Violence Against Women Act is unnecessary."



All the better to demonize liberals and feminists....

All the easier to make the case for white, male privilege.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
19. I read that crap by Riley
Fucking idiot

There has to be something inherently wrong with the brain chemistry of someone who draws conclusions in that way. It ignore facts. It ignores history. It ignores logic. It ignores statistics. It draws a connection between rape and feminism--the logic part I suppose-- what there was no rape prior to feminism? Or rather, prior to it being called feminism? Women were safe and sound and protected by the superior male? That isn't in MY history books, up to and including the bible. Even the white bread wholesale ones. Why someone like that natters on, I don't know. Too bad she gets press. And even worse anybody believes it.

Excellent rebuttal piece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-27-06 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. It ignores the fact that women are human ...
...before they are women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 01:12 AM
Response to Original message
22. Sigh
Feminists, she says, "rarely discuss what to do to reduce the likelihood of a rape. Short of re-educating men, that is."

Like heck. Feminists discuss how women can avoid rape and protect themselves if they encounter a potential rape situation. However, they also go one step further and discuss the all-important factor of re-educating those who do the raping--men. Men are the source of the problem, so it makes sense to work towards preventing them from committing the act, rather than merely penalizing the potential victims as other "rape prevention" efforts often do.

Riley just doesn't get it. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Katherine Brengle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-28-06 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
27. I'm not defending Riley, but --
"If you have attended college any time in the past 20 years, you will have heard that if a woman is forced against her will to have sex, it is "not her fault" and that women always have the right to "control their own bodies." Nothing could be truer. But the administrators who utter these sentiments and the feminists who inspire them rarely note which situations are conducive to keeping that control and which threaten it. They rarely discuss what to do to reduce the likelihood of a rape. Short of re-educating men, that is."

That is the full quote. I think her words are being somewhat misrepresented when it comes to this paragraph. That doesn't help anyone -- it just makes her look more credible than her critics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-29-06 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Yeah she tossed that one in.
Edited on Sat Apr-29-06 05:51 PM by ismnotwasm
Since I work at a teaching hospital connected to a major University, I just went through the web site stats, crime prevention etc. I will say the one line information was more helpful after the fact of ANY crime---what to do, where to go etc. The part on sexual assault was quite explicit, and went out of the way to encourage victims to report the crime. I happen to know there is rape prevention education on campus-- quite extensive-- so I'm still not sure what Riley is trying to say. It has to do with rape prevention and not feminism. (I have only one example here, it would be interesting to do a breadown of prevention education as well as support systems on various campuses.)

One thing that bothered me was the very low reporting of sexual assaults. Campus guidelines are very clear that sexual assault while intoxicated is still sexual assault as are things like unwanted fondling, verbal harassment etc.. I downloaded the 2005 pdf and now I can't find it and for some reason I can't get it again, but in a campus of this size, if I remember right there were less than 10 total (in all categories) reported--as opposed to simple assaults which was 150 something.

I think I'll nose around some more, because the stats just didn't look right. How many sexual assaults are going unreported? And why? Now I, or anyone on this forum can take a good guess at why, but I'd like the see if I can find out what the feel for it is on campus if I can. The education IS there, but the reporting isn't.
Things that make you go Hmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jukes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-18-06 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
33. Naomi Schaefer Riley is
a really bad person w/ a dangerously twisted mind.


i tried to enlarge on the statement, but this person's comments have me to furious for coherency...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 22nd 2024, 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Women » Feminists Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC