Objectifying women

[Autumnlicious]

Stop right there. No one is saying women have to be more alert then men. Men need to stay alert for danger. Being a man doesn't give you a free pass from the dangerous/criminal actions of others. I, and I bet all the other dudes here, look over their shoulders when walking down a dark street. We look around to become aware of our surroundings before using the ATM.

Actually, you are saying women should be more alert than men, since women already have to be alert to things like ATM thefts in addition to sex crimes, maybe more than you men since we are smaller physically. And for sexual violence, every woman already takes more precautions than men, avoiding walking in deserted areas whenever possible etc. It is completely unreasonable to also expect women to avoid popular fashion, popular entertainment (having a drink or two), and going home in a way that's popular (flagging a cab). These things are popular for a reason. Lots of people enjoy them and consider them a commonplace and acceptable thing.

No he isn't. By the statistics, male on male violence, especially when it comes to homicide, dominates when compared to male on female violence, by sheer numbers and percentage. Even when you factor in men raping women and try comparing it to males killing other males, you'll find that the majority of men cited would more likely murder a few of their peers over raping a vulnerable woman.

Clearly, if we were to talk alertness and look at statistics as a guide, males should be more watchful. But as I notice, in matters of high emotion and flying absolutes, reason and logic fly out the damn window.

But let me set you right, without needing to fall back on absolutes of the sort often asserted by theists, and point out a big thing called risk. Risk is everywhere. For example, there is a minor chance when I go to refill my car at the gas station, if I am not paying attention, I may cause a spark when dragging the nozzle around like a caveman - doesn't mean I still can't drag it like a caveman, it simply means that there is a chance of things going south even under my direct control.

In matters regarding two or more persons, there are associated risks. One of them could be that another person is shady and has a high chance of trying to harm you, be it sexually or physically - that risk may not be obviously apparent, but if one detects or picks up on this threat before it manifests, then one could conceivably remove themself from the situation at hand. This is how the majority of people operate - they try to maximize their chances of avoiding harm, scoring a job through acting more courageous during the interview, etc,.

Due to the gradient of interactions and chances, it is logical to note that credit denotes how much of successive actions depend on you, another or both of you (extends up to any number). Certainly you would not think it was all your credit for scoring a job - the job offerer in the first place had to decide you were the right one in the first place, and your song and dance, as it was, convinced them of that.

Now, at the very base level, every action pertaining to you or done by you has the associated property of being linked to you. Every relationship, for good or ill, ties into those actions, where some own more of an action or are connected with more actions than you are in an event or series of events.

This is because we are all connected in a community and every (human) action is connected, sometimes by proxy, with another human.

In matters pertaining to rape, it is clear to anyone with an unclouded mind that the victim did not manage to avoid or even detect the threat displayed in the criminal(s). Does that make the victim more responsible, because they were "unlucky"? No, but if we were to unify our behavior to be more just, it would do if we were to note the conditions, the scenario, whether or not the victim suspected an event occurring, etc,. Surely you would want to establish clearly and without a shadow of a doubt who did what and the degrees of the burden of actions involved with each party - and in the majority of cases, the victim will obviously have an insignificant degree of responsibility, actions - I mean, obviously, the victim has been savagely attacked and brutalized by a thinking human predator.

However, a well built legal system is not one that can take these obvious cases, but one that can take clear directives (laws) and apply them as justly as possible to all matters criminal. That means that sometimes, the criminal(s) were in a heat of passion (see crime of passion), the victim made a reasonable error in judgement (see death by misadventure) or any matter of combinations that arbitrarily can mitigate a criminal(s) actions, show that that victim bears more responsibility (like the woman who owned a chimpanzee that went apeshit one day and nearly killed her - she kept the critter against the recommendations of others and despite knowledge the it (the chimp) was behaving erratically), etc,. Conceivably, there could be a crime where all of the responsibility is of the victims (The victim walked into a bar, provoked a fight, pulled a knife and in the ensuing chaos, was killed by the mass of panicking people (they stepped on him and a few others in their mad rush to get out - however, let it be noticed that it was dark and they weren't going to see him)) as we can conceive of a crime that is solely of the criminals responsibility (a human predator tracks down some college student girl and rapes her - she had no idea he was tracking her).

There is give and take, at least conceptually. Risk and responsibility is everywhere and we all are bound by it.

If I do not look around and become aware of my surroundings, if I walk up to the dimly lit ATM not scoping it out first for danger knowing full well there are those who stalk ATMs looking for unaware naive victims, and just walk up and begin cashing out counting the money in full view of any around, then walk off, get followed and mugged. Do I or do I not hold some responsibility for the theft due to my ignorant actions of 1.)Ignoring inherent dangers. 2.)Not moving on to use an ATM in a more lit, secure place. 3.)Flashing and counting my money out in the open. It's a simple Yes or No question.

No. Just like you wouldn't be to blame for getting robbed after openly displaying that you have a job, and therefore money, by dressing in a manner that flaunts it (I hear you openly carry a briefcase, you hussy!). And I'm disregarding the bad neighbourhood part of what you wrote, since there is no such parallel in rapes. It most often happens in what should be thought of logically as the safest place, the home.

"Society" is not "telling" anyone to dress suductively, just as it's not telling me I have to use that ATM machine.

It is telling women that attractive clothing/appearance is desirable and should be sought after. It's a multi-million dollar industry, maybe multi-billion.

Let me stop you there - just because society told you to jump off a cliff, would'ya do it? You can only blame society so much until it boils down to the actors at hand, and then we're several paragraphs up.

Other than that, let it be noted that I disagree with Dotards later statements, as it has the unfortunate connotation that men are merely animals, unable to control themselves within the bounds of law and society. That, I would think, would be one of the biggest crimes of all with respect to oneself. The crime of being unable to control oneself.