“We know that most rapists choose a victim they know, so what the GOP is telling you is that your best option to prevent rape is to pull a gun on someone you’re familiar with and likely care about. Guns don’t come with a lot of options. You shoot, or you don’t shoot. Yes, theoretically, you can aim for more or less lethal parts of the body, but that brings us back to expertise—even with constant training, police officers in New York City only hit their target 43 percent of the time when the target is between zero and 6 feet away.” – Jaclyn Friedman in Yet Another Thing Guns Can’t Solve [via prospect.org]
Home Crime and Punishment Quote of the Day: The 43% Solution Edition
I don’t get it. She’s cool with people being raped by people they know? I don’t know about anyone else, but if I know you and you decide to violently attack me we are no longer cool. Plus, im going to fill you with lead until you stop coming at me.
The victim mentality disallows adherents from seeking status other than victimhood.
She simply believes that she’d freeze until it was too late. She may be right. Even cops freeze, sometimes; hence the “no hesitation target” training.
You should buy her some of those targets, then. I’m sure they’ll come in handy when an eight year old boy with a pistol tries doing something to her.
Russ, you display MikeyB levels of mendacity.
The no hesitation targets had jack all to do with anything other than conditioning cops to shoot people.
I talked about hesitation, to which she believes she’d be subject.
Many people are – especially if they’ve never previously shot a person.
No, I do not approve of cops learning to shoot pictures of kids, but again it’s about hesitation, a thing to which many people are prone.
I myself have ever shot anything more sentient than a deer, and until the moment of truth, cannot truly know what I’d do. Oh, I’m confident, but that’s not knowing.
She’s simply mistaken about the “all or nothing” concept, which results not from firearms and anatomy facts but rather from the law, which severely penalizes shooting an attacker with any fancy thoughts other that “stop the aggression.” The crotch shot (not the femur shot) is unlikely to kill in an urban hospitals-nearby environment, if accurately delivered at such close range. So send her some life-sized “no hesitation” crotch targets.
Just because I happen to know someone, doesn’t mean I’m not willing to shoot them if necessary.
“Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet”
And there lies the problems with the liberals. They honestly believe that the majority represents 100% of a particular group. For example, they pulled a slim majority of the popular vote, but to them, that means an overwhelming, conservative crushing majority.
But, that flawed philosophy carries over into everything they do/think/believe. Here, she believes that the 1/3 or 1/4 of the whom who are raped by someone they did not know are such a small minority as to make her argument logically sound. I wonder if she asked any women who were raped if, had they a weapon that could have prevented the rape, they would have used the weapon to defend themselves? But, we know that answer would be “no” since her argument is logically sound.
+1000! first comment covers it all!
“I’d rather be raped than hurt a friend…”
Did I read that right?
That’s how it reads to me.
Same thinking as “I’d rather die than use a gun to defend myself”.
This says much about her “friends.”
Gives a new meaning to “friends with benefits”.
Suppose she wants to preserve the option of make-up sex later. Or she likes a big dose of ‘edgy’ in her friends.
A victim they know and do NOT care about. I’m unsure what’s dumber here. The idea that a gun makes a friendly rape situation worse or that there is a friendly rape situation to consider at all.
I “know” good people and bad people. The bad people I wouldn’t hesitate to put down, regardless if I “know” them. I suspect most women, facing the prospect of rape, would do the same. It amazes me that some people like Jaclyn Friedman can be so stupid.
She simply believes that she’d freeze until it was too late. She may be right. Even cops freeze, sometimes; hence the “no hesitation target” training.
She may freeze and she may not. Personally, I rather have someone I care about have that chance.
I’m sure she’ll care for her rapist…
Because a firearm isn’t the solution all of the time, it should be used none of the time? I love that logic.
Yeah, I’ve been hearing it a lot now. “But you can’t use a gun in _____ situation, so you can’t use a gun ever then.” Love that logic.
“Because a firearm isn’t the solution all of the time, it should be used none of the time? ”
Not only that but I guess that Jacky thinks no one should be allowed to think otherwise. No one should be able to decide that for themselves Jacky? You know Jacky, I don’t have a problem with you deciding for yourself that victimhood is the better way to go but….
Wait a minute, we really should have a problem with that. It is the huge number of willing victims that gives villains the expectation that they will be successful in their endeavors thus making it more likely that everyone will be tested by evil. Just as non-gun-owners benefit from gun-owners having the where-with-all to confront evil, we all suffer from the unwillingness by the faint of heart to stand up to evil.
These paragons of liberal thought have so many contradictions in their lives. I wish they would stop trying to resolve all their contradictions without telling me what to do.
What she says is likely true – for her.
However, other women’s mileage will vary. As for the VAW act, I’d personally like to see a few women take their firearms and visit a few GOP congresscritters.
After all, a gal’s not going to have a chance to go for even a body-carried gun in the event of a sucker punch – except in revenge.
I stopped a rape once – with a knife, rather than a gun; I don’t like rapists, and it was hard to not kill the POS. No conceivable measures would be excessive.
The VAW act does nothing except Feeberize crimes that rightly belong on the state level. The GOP is right to block it. There is no constitutional authority for the Feebs to have any thing do to with combating domestic violence.
Also men are overwhelmingly the victims of violence, not women.
How about a violence against everyone act?
Nope. The title “Violence Against Anyone Act” or VAAA doesnt have quite the same ring to it.
Because NYPD are Paragon’s of Accuracy
41 shots. 41 hits.
Yet I still have not heard of any proposals to disarm the NYPD…
Or even give their cops something less than the NYC trigger so they might be able to actually hit something.
I’m sorry, could someone please elaborate on what exactly the NYC cops are required to do for training. I think we’re really stretching the use of the term ‘constant’.
Based on recent conversation with a retired sr level NYPD guy, unless you are special ops, basically 2x per year at Rodmans Neck, fire off your duty mag, plus the spares, plus another 25-50. Anything more is on your dime. When I lived in a different city and kept a S&W 15 for home protection, I shot that religously each month for proficiency.
So ~200 rounds.
In Texas that qualifies for maybe a third of a saturday at the range. I know for a fact I’ve fired at least 10 NYPD officers’ worth of ammo in 2012, and I’m the newb amongst my crew.
(though all have been shooting less due to the shortages, which is what I bet They were intending :p)
Okay lady we get it – you have an unhealthy fear of weapons. Now I promise that I’ll let you live your life completely gun free and with total reliance on the police or other people for your safety. But you have to let me live my life then – whereas I have decided to make my safety my own responsibility.
We can both go our separate ways and in 40 years, if you’re still around, lets get back together and see how it all worked out for you.
“…likely care about”
Not after he tried to rape someone!
“Constant training”? Yet another person who knows nothing about how horribly inept the typical cop is.
So if you know the person it’s legitimate rape ? o.O
I can see the T-shirt now, “If It’s a friend, Give In”
Some stats I’ve seen say that in roughly 90% of the cases, a perp flees or stands down once they know a victim is armed.
I don’t know about the few billion other males on the planet but knowing I’m the pull of a trigger away from the Big Sleep takes me right out of the mood.
Even if what she says is true of “most rapes” what is her proposal for the remainder of rapes that are not committed by your BFF? I guess we just pretend that they never happen?
Can’t tell… if Aunt Pattie or Aunt Selma
Thanks for the laugh.
Wait wait wait…you can only shoot a stranger that’s trying to rape you and not someone you know trying to rape you??
How about: “Don’t rape. Period. And if you’re stupid enough to rape someone, then I hope your victim has the wherewithal to SHOOT YOU IN THE HEAD.”
Big or little?
“We know that most rapists choose a victim they know…”
I think Jaclyn Friedman is tacitly admitting there are far too many women who cry “rape” so they don’t have to admit they had a lot of regrets the next morning.
Bingo. I think your statement sums up exactly what her perpspective is…
So the best bet is to not buy a gun? Gosh I’m shocked, flabergasted & surprised even. I like the other one the grabbers use, “you are just as likely to shoot yourself”, as mentioned by (gun control explained, battlefield315) not if you know what end of the gun the bullet comes out of, Randy
If I read this right, first, NYPD needs more training. Second, this lady thinks that women should not have the right to defend themselves, that they are incapable. We conservatives believe women should have the right to defend themselves and they are more than capable of using a weapon responsibly. And here is proof. My wife took a firearm self defense course the other day and shot out the center of the target…3 inch group with a pistol. She shoots better than most men even under simulated stress.
I am familiar with this scenario. My wife doesn’t go to the range very often but you would never know it. She can hang in there with the local SWAT guys on the range.
That “someone you care about” is about to rape you. That would negate whatever feelings I previously had about them, I should think.
FourFive Rules of Gun Safety
1. Treat all guns as if they are loaded
2. Never point a gun at anything you aren’t willing to destroy
3. Know your target and what’s behind it
4. Keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to fire.
5. Don’t shoot a rapist if he’s personally known to you
Got it, thanks. I’ll let my daughters and wife know.
Woah, wait a second, I don’t agree with #5!
NYPD do not have “constant” training, this is why they can’t hit anything they should and everything they shouldn’t.
Well, that and the mandatory Double-action only 12 lb trigger modified weapons they carry.
More projection bias. She wouldn’t have to stones to shoot someone she knows, therefore no one would have the stones to do so.
I think she means, “. . .so no one should have the means to do so.”
A friend who would rape you is no friend. Period.
IMHO this whole thing is kind of a straw man. Of all the reasons I am against state disarmament of citizens, rape is not one of them, or is the least of them.
If guns never prevented any rapes, my view on gun ownership wouldn’t change. I think this statement is true of lots of us.
The title is “Yet Another Thing Guns Can’t Solve”. Yes, guns also can’t solve weight loss or split ends. Okay.
actually I get a lot of exercise going up and down range, especially on the 600 yard ranges.. weight control via firearms!
Ms. Friedman mentions that most rapists choose someone they know and suggests it would be difficult for the victim to use their firearm on a familiar person who the victim likely cares about.
A rape is a violent, brutal attack which at best creates devastating emotional wounds and at worst involves physical brutality, an unwanted pregnancy, and the transmission of HIV or other diseases. Those characteristics should remove any hesitation or compunction to fight back against the attacker.
The real problem is that so many people walk around oblivious to the fact that someone — especially someone they know — might harm them and their brain is at a loss when someone attacks. The result is that valuable time passes as they try to make sense of the attack and decide what to do. And then it is usually to late.
People need to face the music: violence happens. Once a person admits to themselves that violence happens, they need to respect themselves enough to commit to fighting back vigorously and immediately to any attack.
So in some respects, I would say that Ms. Friedman is on to something. However, the solution is not a vain attempt to remove guns from society. The real solution is to prepare people to respond to attacks without hesitation with the best defensive tools available.
As for Ms. Friedman’s concerns that certain police departments only hit their target 43% of the time when the attacker is between 0 and 6 feet, she overlooks the fact that the goal of a defensive gun use is to simply stop the attacker — it doesn’t matter if the victim hits the attacker. An exceedingly tiny fraction of rapists will continue their attack after the victim points a gun in their general direction and starts firing. That sounds like a really good solution to me.
The sexual revolution has brought to the fore a great many quandaries of the freedom-brings-responsibilty type. The modern American loves the freedom; the responsibility, not so much. So you see all kinds of Rube Goldberg logical, statistical, and even academic constructs painstakingly erected to launch people clear over and past the responsibility side of freedom. Turning the tryst into rape is one such construct.
I’m not saying that there is no violent rape. There is. But the definition of rape (among the Ms. Friedmans of the world) has been expanded to include what would previously have been considered “seductions.” So she gets to have some fun with semantics and paint pro-self-defense folks as wanton killers when when we say “shoot the rapist”, she and those that share the expanded rape definition hear “kill the friend who seduced me.”
One more thing. To those fella’s who might find themselves alone with Ms. Friedman–bring a lawyer. You never know when you might face a rape charge.
I hope she remains a lonely, lonely (and unarmed) woman.
Yes. The definition of rape shouldn’t have been changed, because it was so perfect before.
You do realize that it’s more common for rape not to be reported than for it to be wrongly reported, right? And that whether something was rape has nothing to do with violence?
Not saying that I agree with Ms. Friedman on what she said, ’cause someone who’s about to rape you doesn’t care about you, regardless if you do care about them. And if you can, you should shoot them ASAP. But the talk that you’re talking is dangerous untruths.
But I voted for Obama, so hey, what do I know?
(Excuse any grammar/spelling errors. I’m rather sleep-deprived ATM)
Get deprogrammed, Castle.
I may not agree with you on political and social subjects, so that makes me “programmed”?
I don’t pretend to know what kind of actual, first-hand knowledge you have on the subject. I don’t know you, and I would just end up looking like an @$$ if I pretended I did.
But as someone with real, personal experience on the subject, let me tell you – violence has f$ck all to do with it. And people tend not to report.
I have yet to see how that makes me “programmed”.
We know that way more than 50% of rape allegations are outright false lies and do not even come close to a he said/she said case. The latest newest redefinition of rape by the CDC now includes finding a man guilty of rape if he has sex with a woman who is drunk. It does not now make a difference if the woman is less drunk than the man and the suggestion to have sex was her idea. Men (and boys) are now at fault in modern society by having the Y gene.
BTW, why are rape advocates and the sexual grievance industry so filled with such hideous looking women?
Source for that?
If somebody I know decides that they’re going to attempt to rape me, they’re no longer somebody I wish to know.
There’s a real creepy ethos bein pushed here. We’re all empowered womyn until we actually are empowered by Glock/Ruger/Sig. At which point, power becomes icky and I can’t shoot a rapist. He could be my friend’s ex after all!
Footnote- I hate it when gun banners project their fear of incompetence unto the rest of us.
Footnote – I hate it when gun banners project their
fear of incompetenceimpotence unto the rest of us.
There, fixed that for you.
IIRC, I read that, internationally, 1 in 5 women are raped. Not sure if it’s true, but its scary stuff. Upon discussing this with my wife she explained to my oldest daughter (13 years old) that if anyone she trusts tries to hurt her in that way,.. then they don’t care about her. Hopefully that will help get us over the emotional part of self defense.
As far as the ability part, my girl can keep 50 rounds (9mm)on a paper plate at 20 feet. According to the quote, that sounds better than the average NYC policeman.
Ms Friedman,… Your input isn’t needed here. Please discuss this issue with folks who can’t think for themselves.
I teach a lot of women. 50 rounds on paper at the range with no stress is one thing, getting on target when someone is out to hurt you is another thing and you have no idea how someone will react.
You cannot compare the two situations and you have to drill both.
Shooting at a static target is one thing, fighting back is another. Try some paint ball and/or F-on-F with airsoft with the heart pumping and see if you get the same result.
Good for you for teaching your daughter, just don’t stop at the range.
We’re working on the basics. Getting familiar with the machine. Getting the safety stuff down to 2nd nature. When she’s ready and confident,.. I’m getting her some real (payed for) Self Defense training with the hand gun.
I really think she has nothing to fear in the “being raped” category . . just saying
Because rape is all about the attractiveness of the victim, right? Asshole.
Does this dimwit realize that not all gun owners are in the GOP? Not all democrats advocate being helpless victims?
no, just most of them.
As a victim of child abuse from a family member, I can say without a doubt if I had a gun then I would never hesitate. So FOAD b!t*h!
Of course being that I grew up in Connecticut, I probably would have been arrested. I think they have a duty to retreat.
It depends when you where last in CT. Although not a full Castle Law yet, being attacked in your home will not get you arrested if you fight back…in public, a different story.
It was quite a while ago, 20 years or so maybe. But always at home.
Damn, ignorant @&& people like this woman pi&& me off.
Is this woman some kind of moron? Obviously you are not carrying a gun because you plan to shoot your good friend. But shit, if my friend tried to rape me he’s not my damn friend anymore is he!?
Women go on dates with relative strangers and there is no reason for them not to be concerned for their safety. Just a couple months ago, my girlfriend told me an old friend of hers had been charged with sexual assault because he groped a woman he had gone on a date with on her doorstep. He groped this poor girl and tried to have his way with her, but he was too drunk and messed up to actually go through with rape. My girl was feeling really weird about it because she used to go on dates with him, they never did anything and she watched him become a creep over the internet after she moved away.
Women have always had to be careful and learning to use a firearm makes you very safe from sexual assault indeed. Rape is a crime of opportunity more than anything else and women should never forget that. Rape is not something conservatives and gun rights advocates expect women to put up with! Everyone has a right to defend themselves and only a pinko liberal will try to talk you out of doing so, with fantasies of all the terrible things that might possibly happen in some bizarro universe where you’re a total idiot.
Well, ladies, it is much more likely that you will have to shoot an assailant in a parking lot, dark alley or on your doorstep than when you’re chilling with your friends. That is, unless you chill with convicted sex offenders. These pinkos are well aware of their own irresponsible ways and assume everyone else must be like them. That’s not how it is and there are still plenty of Americans willing to take charge of their own lives and their own safety, as it should be!
cops train constantly?
haha. good one.
How is it you “care” about someone trying to rape you? Shoot the bastard. She may be lumping date rape, non-consensual sex and all that other icky stuff in with forcible rape. We’re talking about forcible rape.
As for NYPD’s lousy marksmanship, go check the 12 pound trigger pull on their pistols if you want to find the answer. (That info comes from my firearms trainer who was a former cop as well as numerous Internet sources.) Another unintended consequence of stupid politicians being afraid of semi-auto firearms. They put the heavy trigger on to avoid “unintentional” discharge and ended up with cops who can’t hit with accuracy and so just empty their guns in the general direction of the perp, which explains why 9 bystanders were hit by police gunfire in the Mpire State shootout last year.
Back in the day when double action revolvers were the norm, are there statistics showing that police accuracy was worse than now i.e. compared to police shooting semi-autos with sub-10-pound triggers?
In only true desperation would anyone try tie gun confiscation to rape. I’m thinking this little bohemian probably just lost half of her female readership overnight.
I’d say something snarky about hoping a passing by CCW holder would honor her wishes if they happened upon her screaming for help, but us real-world people who have seen the damage that rape does would have no problem removing an individual from the friend-zone on her behalf. Permanently.
The other thing about her statement that has not been addressed is this part here:
“Guns don’t come with a lot of options. You shoot, or you don’t shoot.”
Very true. In fact sometimes just having a gun to pull on an assailant is enough even if you don’t shoot it. There are plenty of DGUs wherein the gun is not discharged. Even then if she is saying you have a 43% chance of NOT getting raped it sure sounds a hell of a lot better than zero. I would encourage any woman to shoot someone that attempts to rape them, they are nothing but a rapist at that point.
If you care about someone, you are not raping them.
She’s trying to convince her future victims to be unarmed. Makes her job easier and less risky.
She’s a feminists. Part of her world view is the idea that women are children who should never be allowed to make decisions they might have to take responsibility for.
They consider suggestions for prudent rape avoidance strategies to be evidence of a culture that supports rape!?!?!
Their only currency is a blanket of contrived victemhood based on a narrowly selective view of history, and they’ve gotten along way with it.
Of course she doesn’t want women to have guns, guns are something proactive people use to defend themselves against bad things based on their own judgment and initiative. Women, in their mind, have no judgment or initiative. They are helpless, victims of the random caprice of some mythical male supremacy.
As an egalitarian, I support the right of anyone to defend themselves in the way they choose. That includes women, but unlike feminism, excludes no one.
This is nothing more than the grasping at straws without thinking it through before speaking rant the antis always come up with.
It does not even deserve to be posted.
I stopped reading after the first sentence, the correct phrasing of which should be “CARED about.”
And yes, pulling a gun on someone you cared about (prior to his attempt to rape you) is the best way to prevent rape from occuring.
It is also an excellent deterrent when the potential rapist is a complete stranger.
Of course you must also be prepared and willing to use your gun, if necessary.
As I said I stopped reading after the first sentence, does she offer a better preventive measure, or any?
I’ll bet the house she didn’t.
She’s just asking for it.
What we have here is your average liberal slut. Most men find her disgusting and see her as a human toilet. She now has to resort to throwing out hints to her male friends that she will not fight back if they rape her, hint hint.
Egads… you mean you’ve got to THINK? And that guns are somehow lacking because they don’t do that FOR you? Proof that douchebags come in both sexes…
Wow, most of the comments here seriously make me want to vomit.
What could’ve been a worthwhile discussion of the difficulty of REALISTIC DEFENSE AGAINST RAPE became nothing more than a huge circle-jerk of misogynistic, victim-blaming scum.
Is Ms. Friedman wrong about guns? Absolutely. But the problem she brings up is valid, and no, having trouble using deadly force on someone close to you is not “choosing to be a victim.”
If you’re so confident that you’d be able to kill someone you trust: your best friend, spouse, sibling, parent, or squadmate if they put you in a position like that… if you think taking a life is so easy, by all means, judge away.
Just understand that you are in a tiny minority of human beings, and that for most people, self-defense with deadly force against strangers, let alone trusted friends and loved ones, is a very hard thing. An option that shouldn’t be denied to anyone, but pretending that it’s easy, that it’s all in “choosing not to be a victim” and that’s that… borders on delusion.
“Victim blaming”… I love that phrase. It’s great for shutting down opposing points of view without ever having to address that points being made.
Person A says: You know you shouldn’t smoke because it might cause cancer.
Person B responds: Stop blaming people who have cancer for getting cancer!
At its root is a false equivocation.
Suggesting that someone take reasonable steps to avoid being a victim, is not victim blaming. It’s suggesting that a person take reasonable steps to avoid being a victim.
And misogyny… also a great one, designed to make anyone who disagrees with a point feel vaguely guilty because they are male. Also avoids addressing the points.
Basically any man who disagrees with any woman on any topic is a misogynist.
And finally circle jerk… this sexist (think about it) ad hominem attack is designed to dismiss as irreverent all points being made as a whole… again without addressing them (which is the common theme).
The biggest problem I have with Ms. Friedman’s position is hat she is universalizing her opinion.
She isn’t saying “I” couldn’t shoot a friend who was trying to rape me. She is saying that no woman (men are never victims of rape in her world) is capable of shooting a friend who is trying to rape them.
She would like to take away the choice of women as to how they defend themselves based on her own biases.
So who is really hurting women as a group here?
I say it’s her body, and how she chooses to defend it is her choice… (why does that sound familiar?)
“‘Victim blaming’… I love that phrase. It’s great for shutting down opposing points of view without ever having to address that points being made. ”
It’s also great for telling victim-blamers that they’re blaming victims.
“Person A says: You know you shouldn’t smoke because it might cause cancer.
Person B responds: Stop blaming people who have cancer for getting cancer! ”
Nice strawman, but unless you’re suggesting that rape victims do something to get raped, and thus deserve some of the blame, that’s all it is.
“Suggesting that someone take reasonable steps to avoid being a victim, is not victim blaming. It’s suggesting that a person take reasonable steps to avoid being a victim. ”
Except that’s not what’s being stated. These are not polite suggestions. I’m not making up the victim-blaming and misogyny as a rhetorical device; we have comments that simply boil down the entire complex issue of self defense as a matter of easy choice. You choose deadly force or you get raped. Some of the posts have expressed confusion or disgust over how someone can “care about” their rapist, failing to understand what was said: Statistically, a rapist known (and often close) to their victim beforehand. The difficulty of defense against such an attack is worth serious discussion. That’s not what we have here.
“And misogyny… also a great one, designed to make anyone who disagrees with a point feel vaguely guilty because they are male. Also avoids addressing the points. ”
No, actually, it’s calling misogynists out on their bigoted behavior. Take Leo338’s comment for example: “What we have here is your average liberal slut. Most men find her disgusting and see her as a human toilet. She now has to resort to throwing out hints to her male friends that she will not fight back if they rape her, hint hint.”
That is misogyny. A woman disagrees with you, so she must be a filthy slut. You don’t even have to debate the merit or lack thereof of her position. She’s just some slut and unworthy of consideration. Textbook misogyny.
“Basically any man who disagrees with any woman on any topic is a misogynist.”
Absolutely not. See above. Besides, I already said Friedman is wrong about guns. Clearly, I do not believe that anyone disagreeing with her is a misogynist.
“And finally circle jerk… this sexist (think about it) ad hominem attack is designed to dismiss as irreverent all points being made as a whole… again without addressing them (which is the common theme).”
Fine. It’s a gathering of dudes slapping each other on the back for not being a stupid slut like this woman.
“So who is really hurting women as a group here?”
Both. She dismisses the valuable tools women can use to defend themselves from rape and would see those tools denied to them. However, when we engage in this shameful behavior, not calling her out for being wrong, but instead insulting and dismissing her for being a stupid woman, we basically show anyone outside of our group that we don’t actually care about women, that we are the stereotypical boorish fringe fanatics who only care about guns. That we can’t address anyone’s misgivings, we can only plug our ears and shout “La la la I can’t hear you guns solve everything la la la!”
People who behave this way are the gun-grabber’s allies. Useful idiots, as it were.
Useful idiots, as it were
And who would know that better than you.
Those are interesting counter points…
“It’s also great for telling victim-blamers that they’re blaming victims.”
Were you going for witty. I’m not being flippant, the tautology was clever. I did the same thing in my post.
“Nice strawman, but unless you’re suggesting that rape victims do something to get raped, and thus deserve some of the blame, that’s all it is.”
Nope I’m saying that suggesting that a person take precautions against rape is not promoting rape, or is a rape apologist, or rape culture, or victim blaming but suggesting that a person take precautions to avoid rape. Not a straw man at all. Anymore than suggestion a person take precautions to avoid any other violent act is victim blaming. I teach people not to get drunk and wander alone down dark alleys in strange cities late at night. That’s not victim blaming, it’s prudence.
“Take Leo338′s comment for example: “What we have here is your average liberal slut.”
She does self identify a as “slut” (I’m not sure what that actually means but I read some of her blog and she’s pretty proud of it) so while I may find Leo338’s comment flippant, I’m not going to give them too hard a time about it. Suggesting that one woman is unattractive is not an attack on all women. It’s not a particularly skillful use of rhetoric, but its not sexism. Leo338 just doesn’t find this particular woman attractive. I agree that it’s irrelevant to the argument. I’m not going to work too hard to defend the comments of another user, but let not lump everyone together in a comment thread. That sort of us vs. them stuff is not productive.
“Fine. It’s a gathering of dudes slapping each other on the back for not being a stupid slut like this woman.”
Your missing the point and making gender assumptions, but what if they are all dudes… why would that matter?
“That is misogyny. A woman disagrees with you, so she must be a filthy slut. ”
See above, she self identified as a slut, but you are correct, it’s inappropriate to use epithets. So I’m sure you will reconsider your use of the term “scum” in your initial post, as you recognize that calling other people scum is an attempt to remove their humanity and minimize them as sub-sentient sub-mammalian and disposable life forms.
The use of the term in feminist circles is really shameful, particularly after its progenitor called for male genocide and shot Andy Warhol.
“She dismisses the valuable tools women can use to defend themselves from rape and would see those tools denied to them.”
Hey we agree… yay for common ground.
“Not calling her out for being wrong, but instead insulting and dismissing her for being a stupid woman,”
If a man is being stupid, we might call him a stupid man, but this doesn’t not mean we are saying men are stupid. Switch the pronouns and you’ve got my point.
“That we can’t address anyone’s misgivings, we can only plug our ears and shout “La la la I can’t hear you guns solve everything la la la!””
You make a good point here and I agree with he sentiment. I’ve been banned from a popular YouTube channel (NutN’ something) because I mentioned that he was treating a female competitive shooter in an undignified and juvenile way and suggested that he would never do that to a male competitive shooter. This is no great sacrifice of course, but I am will to call out sexism when I see it… I just don’t discriminate between female and male sexism. It’s all silly.
Her position is predicated upon a very casual acquaintance with the statistical methodology.
The real story here is in how the DOJ (and others) define “shooting someone you know.” It’s been widely mis-interpreted to mean “shooting a friend or family member” by the anti-gun side, when the reality is this:
You know Joe down the street. You don’t ever go anywhere with him, you’d never date him, you’ve never been friends with him, but you know him… because he went to the same high school as you did, just a couple years ahead of you.
The DOJ counts this as “knowing” the person and puts Joe into the same bucket as real “friends.” If you’re assaulted by Joe and you shoot him, guess what? It goes into the same statistical bucket as if you shot your BFF, when Joe was nothing of the kind.
Now, let’s continue with the analysis of Joe: Let’s say he does sexually assault a woman he knows… in this very casual and tenuous definition of “knowing” the attacker, is someone going to hesitate to shoot him while he’s assaulting you?
I somehow think that a woman attacked by a “Joe” level of acquaintance isn’t going to hesitate as represented by the above analysis in the shooting of “Joe” when the alternative is rape… or rape and worse.
Not because she’d never hurt dear, sweet Joe, but possibly because she’s not on the NYPD and is therefor unused to shooting bipeds.
The behavior of some people in this thread, most notably Leo338, is disgusting. She’s wrong, of that I have no doubt, but some of you are assholes, and she can change her mind. The Facebook-esque quality of the comments section lately is really dragging this place down.
Unfortunately, we’re all pretty wound up – even the non-asshats.