‘Rape culture wins’: Feminist freakout after Miss Nevada dares suggest self defense training for women (twitchy.com)

{Libertarian}

347 ups - 93 downs = 254 votes

214 comments submitted at 23:12:55 on Jun 9, 2014 by accountt1234isback1

  • [-]
  • D33GS
  • 51 Points
  • 23:22:08, 9 June

>Miss Nevada was asked about rape at colleges and answered that women need to learn to defend themselves... OR MEN COULD JUST NOT RAPE.

So if I parked my Ferrari in a bad part of town left it unlocked with keys in the ignition what should I do? I could lock the doors and activate the anti-theft system or those guys watching me across the street could simply not steal my ride.

The problem with these kinds of tweets is that they come from the belief that all men are evil and they need to be put in their place. That if they were just taught a lesson once and for all that we'd live in a happy society. That someone should do nothing on their own behalf because "they shouldn't have to" is pathetic idealism at its worst. The world is dark and cruel and it is never going to change no matter how much people believe it will. There will always be that person that wishes to harm others. Better to be prepared if you ever come across that person than blindly float through life in an ideological stupor.

  • [-]
  • I_am_Norwegian
  • 52 Points
  • 02:47:35, 10 June

And what's the deal with telling children they should look both ways before crossing the road? It's the drivers that should be careful! Telling the child to be careful is victim-blaming!

  • [-]
  • manchegoo
  • 13 Points
  • 05:26:51, 10 June

Right. And I'm sure none of these women lock their cars or their homes. People should just be taught to not steal cars.

I shouldn't have to lock my car - its insulting to even suggest I should.

  • [-]
  • maflickner
  • 4 Points
  • 07:04:25, 10 June

I get your analogy, but be careful, you might be accused of "objectifying women"

  • [-]
  • rljkeimig
  • 6 Points
  • 06:20:27, 10 June

Aren't there "This is why I need childism" posters? A good way to defeat an argument is to change subjects and see if it sounds ridiculous. In this case we have a resounding yes.

  • [-]
  • rspeed
  • -1 Points
  • 06:47:58, 10 June

Victim-blaming is a horrible, vile tendency in society that should be fought. But there's a difference between telling a parent that they should teach their kid to look both ways and telling a parent that they should have taught their dead kid to look both ways. Context makes all the difference.

Honestly… I feel like this whole thread is a hair away from becoming a "feminists are idiots" circle jerk. Not all men are rapists? Not all feminists are idiots. We should be careful not to fall into the same rut.

  • [-]
  • expand_susurrations
  • 1 Points
  • 08:05:17, 10 June

If feminism had anything resembling a valid definition, apart from what can be hodgepodged together from "Got the right to vote, and, uh, did a lot of damage", perhaps there would be a basis on which to say "Not all feminists are idiots". I can agree that not all people who call themselves feminists are idiots, because I steer quite clear of idiots in real life and I know a lot of people who still idealistically cling onto the "feminist" label, but I don't think that a sentence predicated on there being a legitimate definition of "feminism" can really ever be correct. It's just intrinsically not a possibility, not right now.

  • [-]
  • rspeed
  • 1 Points
  • 08:43:23, 10 June

> I don't think that a sentence predicated on there being a legitimate definition of "feminism" can really ever be correct

How about this:

> The belief that women should have rights equal to men.

  • [-]
  • expand_susurrations
  • 1 Points
  • 09:00:56, 10 June

So, women should have great difficulty attaining custody of children by default, should be refused legitimate employment opportunities because someone less qualified than they are is also more disadvantaged and everyone feels so bad for their (edit to clarify: the disadvantaged person's) lack of opportunity, and should be manipulated by constant threat of false rape accusation? Oh yeah, and it should be socially normal to perform elective surgery on their genitals in infancy? Because those are the status of "rights" for men that one-of-many-totally-legitimate-and-arguable-definitions-of-feminism is trying to perpetuate.

I'm a young white female in the United States, and I do not live in a just society until my brothers and cousins and boyfriend and friends are legitimately treated as safe, innocent until proven guilty, helpful, deserving members of society, just like I am. Edit to add: And as long as I'm bombarded with hatred from feminists on the one side for thinking like this -- it's constant -- and bombarded with ads all over the internet the rest of the time for female-specific scholarships and female-exclusive business funding and feminist-slanted invalid academics -- which is also constant -- the balance is factually firmly tipped in the "This is seriously fucked up" direction.

Edit edit edit: Also, feminism by that definition you give is factually outdated in the United States. I have yet to see any legitimate, scientifically researched defense of any claim of endemic oppression of women in the United States in this day and age. The "wage gap" thing is a great example of a lie based on lazy interpretation of incomplete, poorly-assimilated information, so inb4 that piece of propagandist fiction.

  • [-]
  • rspeed
  • 1 Points
  • 09:02:47, 10 June

Would that not fall under what I just said?

  • [-]
  • expand_susurrations
  • 1 Points
  • 09:09:18, 10 June

Okay, I reread and I think you're responding to the idea of my male-everyoneses being treated as equals with me.

No. That does NOT fall under what you just said, because the statement "The belief that women should have rights equal to men" is predicated on an assumption/stipulation that men are not screwed in any way, and comes dangerously close to perpetuating the notion that they can't be. It literally requires men to be privileged oppressors to be a sentence that means anything, which they're very much not, and the perpetuation of this idea is harmful to everyone.

  • [-]
  • rspeed
  • 1 Points
  • 09:18:32, 10 June

If I steal $5 from you, and you steal $1 from me, I can't claim that I'm worse off. If you say we should be equal, that means you also have to stop stealing from me.

  • [-]
  • expand_susurrations
  • 1 Points
  • 09:57:53, 10 June

Uhhhh-huh. Okay, give me one source, scientifically valid, with research methods identified (not "Blah said blah number", I mean "A study which had this sample size and was conducted in this way says blah number"), that explains how, in the United States, in the current day and age, men are in any way oppressing women on a systematic/endemic level. Anecdotal examples of workplace sexism also aren't admissable evidence of a systemic trend, and no, I didn't just cherry-pick that, it's logic.

Protip: Your analogy totally fails, because part of the problem with feminism is the perpetuation of "Men are stealing from women" as an unshakeable abstract truth -- and worse yet, the perpetuation of the idea that abstract nonspecific statements are even meaningful for practical purposes.

Edit: That was where you were going with that, right? It'd be nice if you wrote more clearly.

  • [-]
  • expand_susurrations
  • 1 Points
  • 09:07:11, 10 June

My bad. I distracted myself in a rapid-fire cycle of compulsive editing, and now I'm not sure which bit you're replying to. (I do that when I'm tired ... well ... all the time ... but more when I'm tired.) I stopped editing now, btw. >.>

  • [-]
  • flyingcaveman
  • 8 Points
  • 06:34:07, 10 June

http://i.imgur.com/KAv0EO8.jpg

  • [-]
  • logicalthinker1
  • 19 Points
  • 03:35:54, 10 June

The stats they through out about college rape are ridiculous. They only arrive at those numbers because they've redefined rape. And that's a slap in the face to people who have actually been raped.

  • [-]
  • ICareBecauseUDo
  • 12 Points
  • 02:46:37, 10 June

I was going to make the analogy about our armed forces, how if this ideology worked out, we could disarm our military, because we 'shouldn't have to defend ourselves'

  • [-]
  • tedted8888
  • 2 Points
  • 05:40:08, 10 June

Oh the lovely informed voting public. Democracy amiright?!?

  • [-]
  • Harry_Scarface
  • -8 Points
  • 02:55:50, 10 June

With all due respect, this is a terrible way to look at this issue. Let me explain.

Self-defense is hard, especially if you are a woman, because most likely you are shorter and 10% lighter than your opponent. So in order to protect yourself effectively, you need to make a considerable investment, and many women can't make that investment. Just like men, they have other things to do, like getting a college degree, or taking care of their children, or running a business. Even if you do make that investment, there's no guarantee that you'd end up like Lara Croft. You may still be overpowered. So the returns of this investment is not that clear. It's not as simple as locking your car. It's more like installing a million dollar anti-theft system with money you saved for your kid's education.

On top of that this is a political issue, unlike the case with the car theft. Instead, suppose you live in an area where there's a lot of mugging, and a lot of gang violence at night. So if an innocent person gets mugged, or killed, the blame usually falls on the criminals, and the police department. Now suppose instead of cracking down on the criminals, the police starts giving self-defense instructions to people who've otherwise never handled a gun, saying they don't have the manpower to take on the criminals just yet. But suppose you don't have the time to learn how to handle a gun, because of course you have to play with your Xbox One in your spare time (or because you have to study, or you have a job, or you have to cure cancer or anything that you want to do with your life). Suppose everyone else is learning how to shoot like a sharpshooter except you.

After some time, suppose there is a drop in mugging and killings. Of course there'd be a couple of cases where people had got killed because they tried to take care of the situation themselves instead of calling 911. But still there's a drop.

Then you get killed. Everyone starts pointing fingers at everyone else. The police says their self-defense training program had been effective, and this death could have been prevented if you had come to their classes and taught yourself how to shoot. So there's this shift of blame. Conservative TV pundits start blaming tree-hugging, anti-gun liberals for the shooting, because clearly you were persuaded by tree-hugging, social justice obsessed, anti-gun libtards. The police just blames you for not coming to their training. The sixteen year genius kid of your neighbor, who is on his way to curing cancer, is now pushed to spend a considerable amount of time to learn how to handle a gun safely and effectively against hardened up criminals.

This shifting of blame should not happen, and doesn't make any logical sense. But it does happen. Learning self-defense might even improve your chances of not getting raped. Not dressing provocatively and not getting drunk too much may also improve your chances. But focusing on that at a societal level have a lot of other implications, like limiting a woman's personal freedom.

  • [-]
  • D33GS
  • 21 Points
  • 03:22:50, 10 June

I'm not saying self-defense is a one stop shop solution. Far from it. Just like locking my doors on the Ferrari in my example or saying buy a gun or getting a dog to protect my home etc... These things may make you safer but they don't eliminate the possibility of something happening.

I'm just not in favor of this idea that "If men would just stopping raping it would end rape." It isn't a realistic or even thoughtful idea that doesn't further the discussion in any meaningful way.

  • [-]
  • valentina13r
  • -1 Points
  • 06:21:23, 10 June

I get the whole "if rapists would just stop raping it would end rape" idea is not a realistic solution, however along those lines we would dramatically diminish the amount of rapes that occur if we punished in the court of law and sent to prison the rapists who actually committed these attacks because currently only about 3% of rapists spend a single day of jail time for their crimes

  • [-]
  • BlackJackShellac
  • 2 Points
  • 06:29:21, 10 June

How do you suggest we

>punished in the court of law and sent to prison the rapists

Like, do we start reformatting our justice system?

  • [-]
  • wfb0002
  • 3 Points
  • 05:25:34, 10 June

I think that the point that everyone who is upset about her answer is missing is that nobody is denying that it is indeed the rapist's fault. What people are saying is that because we live in an imperfect world, we should take precautions to prevent a societal problem, while concurrently battling the problem on the societal level.

I find the car analogy fine on a topological level, while I do agree its scope is off. It is not quite as far off as you would have led people to believe though. Mace on a key-chain is a simple small step to take. Also, since a big issue is on-campus rapes, perhaps the idea of concealed carry on campus can be looked at as a simultaneous solution to rape education?

  • [-]
  • arkofcovenant
  • 5 Points
  • 04:14:58, 10 June

> Just like men, they have other things to do, like getting a college degree, or taking care of their children, or running a business.

Myself and my girlfriend have earned our blackbelts in our University Taekwondo club while earning our degrees. Our club also includes multiple mothers and business owners, and I would be very surprised if any of them claimed that martial arts has gotten in the way of those things.

  • [-]
  • flyingcaveman
  • 4 Points
  • 04:19:00, 10 June

So, you're looking for guarantee's that nothing bad is ever going to happen? Who gives those out?

  • [-]
  • WTFppl
  • -2 Points
  • 06:35:07, 10 June

-1 Poor reading comprehension.

  • [-]
  • flyingcaveman
  • 1 Points
  • 07:05:02, 10 June

Its incomprehensible. Its just a bunch of bitching about all the bad things that might happen and somebody else should do something about it because the person is unwilling to take any responsibility for themselves. Lock everybody up I suppose.

  • [-]
  • WTFppl
  • 1 Points
  • 08:53:36, 10 June

>Its incomprehensible.

Than you are a fucking moron. Not only that, you can not tell when someone is making an observation, this is obvious.

  • [-]
  • sciencegod
  • -3 Points
  • 04:08:19, 10 June

You are dumb and you should feel dumb.

  • [-]
  • WTFppl
  • 1 Points
  • 06:36:44, 10 June

-1 For a great reply!

  • [-]
  • Barboski
  • -1 Points
  • 04:26:34, 10 June

> That someone should do nothing on their own behalf because "they shouldn't have to" is pathetic idealism at its worst.

Is this not the fundamental premise of the non-aggression principle?

  • [-]
  • 152515
  • 7 Points
  • 04:36:06, 10 June

No, not at all. That principle is how society should be governed, and how people should act. Not remotely a descriptor of how people actually do act.

  • [-]
  • Barboski
  • 1 Points
  • 04:39:50, 10 June

I'm afraid I don't follow, but before I get accused of trolling I do mean this earnestly: My knowledge of the NAP is that it's a moral code more than a political one. Most individualists, which includes libertarians, seem to indicate that government has no place in governing morality (and how people "should act"). That seems very totalitarian to me. Your description is very different from what I've learned since 2007 or so.

  • [-]
  • 152515
  • 3 Points
  • 04:42:56, 10 June

I should have qualified my "should act" claim- I meant "should act insofar as they are impacting others". Libertarian ideals of government would still have a mechanism (let's call it the state) to enforce non-aggression (example: punish rapists).

  • [-]
  • Barboski
  • 2 Points
  • 04:47:02, 10 June

Ah, I appreciate the answer. This is more of a minarchist response than an Anarcho-Capitalist one, which I often receive on this sub. It sounds a bit more sensible in real-world applications.

  • [-]
  • 152515
  • 3 Points
  • 04:48:29, 10 June

True, the libertarian umbrella is wide, though my understanding is that the most mainstream thread is the minarchist vision I've started to describe.

  • [-]
  • expand_susurrations
  • 1 Points
  • 08:07:17, 10 June

> minarchist

I just learned of this word/term because of you guys. I find myself to generally align more with anarcho-capitalism most of the time, but I really like and appreciate that I now have the ability to use this word to describe some of my ideologies. Thanks!

Edit: It really pisses me off that a single line break automatically just deletes itself and puts everything on one line. DX Fixed.

  • [-]
  • D33GS
  • 4 Points
  • 05:05:31, 10 June

The non-aggression principle allows for self-defense and preparedness in the event of someone else violating it.

  • [-]
  • Barboski
  • 2 Points
  • 05:19:05, 10 June

With respect, why have the NAP at all then? If we accept that people exist who wish to harm us regardless of morals or logic, what's the point of waiting in terms of stopping them? I mean this solely based upon the information at hand.

  • [-]
  • expand_susurrations
  • 1 Points
  • 08:10:48, 10 June

I agree with the point you didn't mean to rhetorically make with your sincere-sounding question. If I had said that question, I would have meant the rhetorical point angle on it.

I was raised on this: "Everyone and everything in the world lives in a state of anarchy. Rules and government systems are just a mutual agreement to pretend we don't."

Logic leads me to a non-aggression principle, out of empathy and self-preservation and conservation of energy and for all kinds of good reasons. I do not think, though, that it makes sense as a primary principle rather than a secondary result of a more practical, survivalist, arguably cynical principle.

  • [-]
  • vertigo42
  • 3 Points
  • 07:15:31, 10 June

Non aggression principle says its wrong to aggress against others(which is part 1 of what feminists are saying) but Also does not forebear using defense to protect yourselves who would violate such a principle.

So the NAP is actually totally all for defense because while the principle is how we ought to act, some people don't follow that. Feminist argument in this situation is that as long as we teach it once, no one will ever do it again... Yeah thats not how it works. There will always be violators of the peace. Be prepared to defend yourself from them.

I shouldnt have to learn to defend myself but I its smart to learn to do so. They make the argument that people shouldnt have to and then stop there. Yes in a perfect world no one would aggress against others. But there are loco motherfuckers out there. Defense is only practical. They say that learning these defensive techniques is just furthering the rape culture...

its really horrid reasoning.

  • [-]
  • Barboski
  • 1 Points
  • 07:21:31, 10 June

So if the non aggression principle is futile in concept, considering that it will never be followed 100% of the time, what good is advocating it? Why should I follow such an obscure ideal if others will take advantage of my own trust?

  • [-]
  • vertigo42
  • 1 Points
  • 07:29:22, 10 June

If you are saying because .000001% of the population rapes someone that we shouldnt then I don't even know how you could ever argue for any moral code. Its not Futile because the rare few are psychopaths. NAP justifies self defense more than any other system because it also advocates for defense against the state.

Most people are not psychopaths. most people don't like hurting people nor do they want to.

And NAP doesnt mean you should blindly trust people. FFS its just saying you shouldnt aggress against others. Most people dont do that. Its just a matter of showing people how the NAP applies to everything and that includes the government stealing from people, using said money to subjugate and kill.

  • [-]
  • Barboski
  • 1 Points
  • 07:42:20, 10 June

I'm all for the NAP as a personal moral code, I'm just curious how certain branches of libertarianism (that is, the non-consequentialists mostly) justify using morality to legislate a population when there are clear examples (as is the case of the feminist above), which encroach upon personal liberties while executing a similar tactic. What they're arguing for is the same thing that the NAP does, in that it exemplifies a certain minority as the broader example of who should be punished for a crime.

I'm fully in support of the learning of various martial arts/self defense techniques in order to protect oneself from external harm. My thought process is, doesn't this ultimately render the NAP useless, if we don't accept that the population can follow it? Sure, there's a small population of rapists, but then there's a larger population of murderers, and an even larger population of violent robbers, and an even larger population of just flat out violent criminals who won't think twice about some moral principle. The options then are to either make them think twice about it by prescribing morality into law, which I am personally very much against, or by acknowledging that the non-aggression principle is flawed and working within a statist paradigm of prevention.

That said, I'm all ears for other options, but I'm just trying to find the logic in how the NAP is valuable if we still have to deal with psychopaths in various walks of life regardless of whether or not they believe in it.