Oh and like OB, I know far too many friends and relatives who've had much more damaging experiences than mine.
Mine's like a walk in the park compared to most of the women's experiences I'm thinking of. Most of them weren't in a position to do a helluva lot of "fighting back" as TT describes it, or tried and were unsuccessful - hence the rage.
Some of these comments on here...wow (I'm looking at you TT).
Thanks GDM & others for attempting to bring some realism into this argument. And thanks to the OB for speaking out.
I tried to type out some kind of comment to express the level of fury I've felt this week, but I'm just too angry to comment on this bullshit. I can't even.
But I will say one thing:
I was a passenger in a taxi some years ago when the driver jumped me and shoved his tongue down my throat.
Whatever logic brought him to this decision, I don't know - and frankly, it doesn't matter at this point. I know that I didn't come onto him or flirt with him. He wanted to chat. I chatted back and was friendly. That's it. (Furthermore, I was with my bf when he'd picked me up).
I'm a fiesty person, I'm athletic and fit. I generally have good instincts. I tried to push him off of me but quickly realized how strong he was, that there was absolutely no way in hell I could ever get him off without things escalating into some serious violence. And I don't know if I would've been able to walk away from that. All of this flashed through my somewhat intoxicated brain in a split second.
I decided to 'gently' resist, smiling awkwardly as I paid him and stepped out of the vehicle. The whole thing was over in 1-2 minutes.
He'd dropped me off in front of my place and I realized that I'd left the light on in my apartment. So when I got up to my apartment, I crawled around on my hands and knees so that he wouldn't know which one was mine.
It's good that I did because he came back later that night and sat outside, beeping his horn (others in my very small apt bldg told me this the next day).
I'm telling this story because of your comments, TT.
If I had done as you would have suggested, I very well may not have made it out ok. Sure, he was "kind enough" to stop but if I had made a fuss, who knows. If I'd acted angry, he probably would've gotten angry, too. After all, anyone entitled enough to pull a stunt like that probably isn't going to react too well when rejected harshly.
So, I did what I did and people like you have the fucking nerve to blame others who've been in situations like mine and call us 'weak'.
Fuck your comments.
Agree with a lot of what you said, OB.
I think Tim Bousquet said it best, though:
[MM] “Excluding those cases of deep-seated misogynistic psychopathy, drunken opportunism, or biased social messages from whatever source, such assaults, as I have written elsewhere, are the outcome of a deep-seated psychological resentment by the male against the female."
[MM] “In a word, the concept of "educating" young men and women in this regard is irrelevant since sexual assault is not a rational activity. Put differently, there IS no rational "silver bullet" which will eliminate sexual assault.”
MM, I’m afraid you’ve conveniently excluded an awful lot here. Obviously, resentment comes into play in a number of cases. You’re essentially saying that if one harbours resentment against another, be it a group or an individual, education (I would include counselling in this category) is unhelpful and irrelevant. Also that rationality has no place when dealing with 'irrational' behaviour.
I think that's bullshit. In my line of work, I've seen the opposite be true in many, many cases.
Also, nowhere in my post did I claim there was a “silver bullet. We are a complicated species, there are no simple answers as I explained quite clearly.
Tommy: “How can you say that education and being informed is good for perps but not victims? Just as we should educate people to respect others we should educate people that not all of us follow the rules and we should be careful.”
Not sure if this was @ canned or me…? If me, then please re-read my post as I explained the rationale there. I also never said that we shouldn’t educate victims.
Some food for thought re: education: http://halifax.mediacoop.ca/story/removing…
Good posts Canned, Tommy, Captain.
Canned is absolutely right in the sense that there is a level of victim blaming involved in the responses.
At the same time, I can completely understand why Tommy & Captain wrote what they wrote because without a doubt, we all have a part to play in our own safety. There's no denying that.
What gets many people riled up is that as women, since we were old enough to talk we've been told:
we need to be afraid of strange men; never, ever leave your drinks alone; don't drink with men you don't know; don't get too drunk with men you do know; don't get too drunk; don't drink at all!; never walk alone at night; if you find yourself alone at night, don't ever, ever, engage with a stranger, no matter how polite they look; DEFINITELY don't engage with scary-looking dudes!; be sure to return a friendly 'hi'/engage in conversation when out and about, even if it's getting late, lest you come across as a feminist bitch; go out to clubs in groups; don't ever leave your girlfriends alone, especially if they are drunk; don't wear that top/dress/skirt/(insert other clothing item of choice) because it looks like you're asking for sex; don't expect to be able to make out with someone, then say you're not interested in sex, and expect him to be ok with it/DO expect to be able to make out with someone, then say you're not interested in sex, and expect him to be ok with it...I could go on.
Now all of this probably sounds (mostly) fine to many of you - perfectly reasonable, even.
But I'll ask you this: why, when these are the messages that women have been hearing from basically everyone since forever, is sexual assault so prevalent?
If we take a moment to stop and think about it, it's perfectly logical: the usual victim-blaming hasn't worked in the prevention of sexual assault, doesn't work - full stop.
[Side note: it has worked in the sense that many assault victims blame themselves for what's happened to them, so I guess it's been effective in that way. Also: if anyone argues that if we 'threw out the dos/don'ts for women, we'd have a lot more sexual assaults' they've missed the fucking point].
If we want assaults against women to stop, perhaps it's time to take a different tactic.
I think it's time we start educating young men & women about what consent means. And that maybe we need to shift our focus from telling women all the things they can do to *avoid* sexual assault to explaining to boys and men why it's not cool to assault women.
To explain to men & women why, in spite of the messages we see every day, women are not merely here for male pleasure. (You can say this to a guy but when he sees 5 messages objectifying or demeaning women to every 1 female-positive message, which message do you think is going to get through? Women see these messages, too, and it absolutely has an effect on them.)
Ultimately we need to change the way both boys/men and girl/women see their place in the world and how they perceive their relationships with each other.
Men are sent just as many ridiculous messages as women about what constitutes a "real man" and what doesn't. It's not helpful to anyone.
I think focusing on these things, as opposed to the same old victim-blaming, is a good place to start.
Ok. I have a legit question for everyone on here who says they're pro-choice but they disagree with abortion being used as a form of birth control.....why?
So you're saying it's ok to abort - but only under certain circumstances (ie. a one-off, or two-off or if there's a really, really, good reason...). Isn't that essentially like saying you only believe in abortion for cases of abuse or incest? Different, of course, but the same in that abortion is only ok under certain circumstances - whatever those circumstances are deemed to be.
I'm not being facetious, honestly. I'm just curious how many people have truly and honestly examined their reasons for their beliefs.
Let's say you're pro-choice because a) you believe in a woman's right to exercise control over her own body; and
b) you don't consider a fetus or embryo to be a human being.
In my experience most of those who are pro-choice identify this way because of both a and b.
So then if the embryo or fetus isn't actually a human being but a bunch of cells, why does it matter how often it is "aborted"? Or for that matter, why does it matter why someone chooses to abort something if it's only a bunch of cells?
Why do we place a value judgment on an individual choice when we're (us pro-choicers who believe a & b) only talking about a bunch of cells here?
I mean, do we disagree with using abortion as a form of birth control because such a procedure is rather serious and undergoing it willy-nilly is irresponsible because it's a fairly extensive procedure?
But then who is it irresponsible for? For the person undergoing the procedure? But if you believe in a person's right to have ultimate say over their being, what does it matter how often they harm themselves, especially if no one else is harmed in the process?
Or is it because the procedure, if done in hospital, is covered by taxpayers?
Or is it something else I'm missing....?
Is it because as a society, many of us are still pretty uncomfortable with killing something like a fetus even if we say it's not really a person because, as Reg LeCrisp said, it's a (really close) possible existence of a person - an almost-person? Do we feel that aborting casually is a slap in the face of the miracle of human life?
I *think* if we're really honest with ourselves, it's difficult for any of us to pinpoint exactly why this makes us uncomfortable.
I'm no philosopher or MM stand-in but I am curious what others think.......should this (aborting as birth control) make us uncomfortable or is that being contradictory?
I don't think you dodged a bullet, OB, but a freakin' missile.
Daniel, I WISH this bitch wasn't legit, but I'm pretty damn sure it is. There's a lot of awesome guys out there....then there's duds like this who are clearly stuck in another century. Fortunately I've met more of the former but every now and then I run into one of these tools.
And TJ902 I dunno, it didn't sound to me as though the guy just wanted a woman to cook for him every now and then.
The way the bitch read it sounded like he actually did want a woman to do ALL of the cooking, ie. wait on him hand and foot or in other words, be a "slave" in the kitchen.
(She said he seemed obsessed with her doing ALL of the cooking and that the conversation continued to be about cooking and focused on feeding him). And then the comment about Asian women.....classy.
I'm just gonna throw it out there that in any respectful, egalitarian relationship both partners share the duties.** If that means that one person does all the cooking and the other does all the cleaning, so be it. Pretty sure that's not what this guy was getting at here.
**Disclaimer: I'm in no way a shining example of this. My husband is pretty awesome and has definitely pulled more than his fair share of the load on more than the odd occasion. But it's not like I expect him to because he's a man and that's his job or anything.
You might call it laziness on my part, but I like to refer to it as being laid-back. ;)
All Comments »
Halifax's sex secrets revealed
Search 100s of Halifax restaurants, bars and cafes
Interior design and home accessories in Halifax.
Designers, stores and fashion, all locally-sourced.
The official handbook to student life in Halifax.
2013 Reader Survey results
All the beer, all over town
The Coast's Well Being Guide
The couple's guide to everything.
Coast Publishing Ltd.