Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-27769747

The TLR is that she said as a black belt she felt confident in fending off college sexual assaults and thought other women should be encouraged along the same lines.

Critics said we ought better to teach men not to commit sex crimes.

Whilst I agree with that view point, it seems to me that having a woman grab and twist the testicles hard is likely to put any man off committing a sex crime.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-27769747

The TLR is that she said as a black belt she felt confident in fending off college sexual assaults and thought other women should be encouraged along the same lines.

Good for her!

Critics said we ought better to teach men not to commit sex crimes.

Wait... wut?

How can this be, in any way, controversial?

Whilst I agree with that view point, it seems to me that having a woman grab and twist the testicles hard is likely to put any man off committing a sex crime.

Um... yeah, they need to be able to, ya know, defend themselves.

O.o

Strange times...

I honestly can't see a problem with what she said. Knowing how to defend yourself is important anyway, not just against sexual predators.

I think its basically criticising her for not saying we need to change guys who are likely to commit rape.

Frankly of the 2 solutions hers seems better.

lol... so much fail...

may as well say somthing like

nasa boss "arrrgh that space shuttle exploded AGAIN....

DIDNT YOU TELL THAT SHUTTLE NOT TO EXPLODE!!"

engineer "well, yes, we told it not to explode, its even in the law that you as a shuttle are not allowed to explode.

maybe we could try to prevent the explosion by not sending up shuttles with design specifications that are known to have a high likly hood of failure that increases its chances to explode"

nasa boss "why must you encourage this explosion culture? you are a bad person and everything that you just said offends me."

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think its basically criticising her for not saying we need to change guys who are likely to commit rape.

Frankly of the 2 solutions hers seems better.

I have to agree. Now that I've read the article, it just seems like an overblown case of militant feminism. You just know that, if she said the other option, feminists would have criticised her for telling women to rely on men to solve their problems.

I'm offended that they are offended. of course I taught my daughter to shoot a M1 carbine and play "crush the eggs."

To date she's only flipped one table on a boy... I'm so proud.

Critics said we ought better to teach men not to commit sex crimes.

This is a common thing I've been reading recently whenever anyone advises vigilance or practical advice to avoid being a victim of sexual assault. I think feminists seems to think this is some form of victim blaming and that the emphasis should be on men not to rape as opposed to women to tape steps avoid being raped. If you apply the same logic to any other crime you really see how daft it is. Telling people to lock their cars and not flash their valuables in rough areas is seen as perfectly sensible advice and is never called victim blaming.

Furthermore this idea that men 'ought better to teach men not to commit sex crimes' an incredibly naive way of looking at things. Do people really think that that rapists are simply poorly educated and if only someone had told them that it was wrong to rape then they wouldn't?

99% of men know not to rape wouldn't dream of doing so and the other 1% don't care and won't listen. No amount of well meaning lessons on consent will deter them. With that in mind a certain degree of vigilance is vital and no this is not blaming the victim.

It is a lot harder to get convicted of rape than many other crimes, due to the way society treats it, or rather tends to treat the victim as complicit and partly responsible.

That said, I still think a tough punch to the gonads is a good thing for a woman to know how to deliver. Two rigid fingers shoved hard into the eyes is another good one.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is a lot harder to get convicted of rape than many other crimes, due to the way society treats it, or rather tends to treat the victim as complicit and partly responsible.

That said, I still think a tough punch to the gonads is a good thing for a woman to know how to deliver. Two rigid fingers shoved hard into the eyes is another good one.

Or urinate/puke on your attacker.

o.O

I am offended by everyone posting those stupid comments under the article.

At NO POINT did she ever offend any rape victim or made it look not as bad as it is. She merely stated that she can defend herself and recommended every woman to do the same.

This isn't offensive, this is a fething good advice. The only offensive thing is those "special people" claiming they want to teach men "not to rape". What the feck. This is a sexist and as offensive as a comment can possibly be as this suggests that every men is likely to rape a woman unless taught not to.

...and seriously, how on earth would you teach someone that raping is wrong? Like...god.

Goddamn it, so many stupid people.

Self-defense is the best thing you can do and should be mandatory in all schools. It's one thing that can never be bad, but only do good for you.

Maybe I'm weird, but I see both as valid points...

The US Army recently changed it's entire anti-sexual harassment/sexual assault program.. It used to be "this gak happens, we'll punish the gakheads who do it". Now, it's "let's provide care and support for the victims, as well as an educational approach to change the culture"

There is definitely a TON of positives, and no real downside to self-defense.

To me, the educational and "teach men not to rape" (which are stupid ways of putting things, because men can/do get raped/sexually assaulted) is more in the aspect of changing the culture of "lol, she blacked out drunk and I fethed her" or any of the other stories that people often hear. Because a good chunk of rape/assault cases are on people who are in relationships or at least know each other.

I dunno, maybe I'm just weird for thinking that attacking a social issue from multiple fronts is a good idea.

My sister took self-defence classes as part of her PE lessons one year. These were aimed at teaching women how to defend themselves from men, and it was quite a popular course. As LusicusAR says, it's a 1% who commit offences, and teaching people to fend off that 1% is important.

(Beyond the obvious kick-in-the-balls, one of the tricks they learnt was some kind of jab to a nerve in the elbow, which she spent about half an hour trying to do to me. Apparently I'm immune to it? It worked on other people. Mind you, I'm convinced I'm basically dead ever since my pulse was measured at 4bpm pre-exercise and 3bm post-exercise.By a professional Biology teacher, who, for all her faults, should have known how to find a pulse).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is a lot harder to get convicted of rape than many other crimes, due to the way society treats it, or rather tends to treat the victim as complicit and partly responsible.

On the flipside, a rape charge is also the easiest way to ruin someone's social standing. Doesn't matter what the courts decide.

I don't think telling Women to attack their attacker is a sensible idea considering the man may well be more physically capable. In fact it would probably lead to greater harm of the woman.

This just seems like an extension of "she was asking for it" argument because she couldn't physically defend herself.

Having taught at a martial arts school which offered women's self defense classes I think that every woman should take some instruction. It's not to place any blame on them, because even if you are skilled fighter it can still happen, but if it were my girlfriend, wife, or a daughter I'd at least want them to have every tool possible to help them fight as much as possible.

A lot of what we was taught wasn't just defensive moves, a lot focuses on general awareness of situations where a threat may come from and warning signs to watch for. Not playing blame the victim but there is a significant portion of women who have no clue how open they are to danger even in public places and how even small actions can help guard against becoming an easy target. By just knowing what to watch for they can greatly reduce the risks of it occurring by making minor adjustments in behavior, simple stuff like traveling with a friend at night or keeping keys in hand while walking from you car to a building are things that greatly reduce your profile as target. Also when you have prepared yourself mentally how to address a situation before it ever arises you hardwire yourself to react faster and can take on an aggressive defense, where the ideal victims are those that are completely unaware of the situation and surrounding largely making them unable to react to the threat.

Teaching them ways to inflict pain is also quite successful as it can potentially provide an opportunity to run and escape or at least try and make enough noise to get help. I think defense classes are a very valuable asset to women and I'd highly encourage them to take them whenever possible. A lot the classes are even offered for free, we used to offer bi-weekly classes for free and they were open to the general public for whoever wanted to attend.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is a lot harder to get convicted of rape than many other crimes, due to the way society treats it, or rather tends to treat the victim as complicit and partly responsible.

On the flipside, a rape charge is also the easiest way to ruin someone's social standing. Doesn't matter what the courts decide.

That may or may not be the case, however the rate of prosecution of rape is very low and the successful prosecution rate has been dropping (in the UK).

Liberals think its better to be a victim than to defend yourself so when Ms. Nevada said women should learn to defend themselves, they freak out and ignore that despite laws, crimes still happen.

While I agree with the “Teach men not to rape, rather than women how to avoid rape” idea, I do not think aggressiveness is a good way to convey this point of view, and I do not think Miss USA deserve to receive flak for her comment.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Liberals think its better to be a victim than to defend yourself so when Ms. Nevada said women should learn to defend themselves, they freak out and ignore that despite laws, crimes still happen.

That is an extremely offensive remark.

 Medium of Death wrote:


I don't think telling Women to attack their attacker is a sensible idea considering the man may well be more physically capable. In fact it would probably lead to greater harm of the woman.

This just seems like an extension of "she was asking for it" argument because she couldn't physically defend herself.

Lets see.
Defend your self maybe avoid harm. Maybe rapist ends up in morgue if done right.
Maybe be harmed more.

Don't defend yourself.
Be raped.
Maybe be murdered.
Not seeing the downside.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
While I agree with the “Teach men not to rape, rather than women how to avoid rape” idea, I do not think aggressiveness is a good way to convey this point of view, and I do not think Miss USA deserve to receive flak for her comment.

Why not both?? I mean, no matter how much you "teach" people not to be rapists, there's still that slim percentage that will (event if they're not intending to) commit a crime. On the flip side, there is literally no downside to teaching people self-defense.

 Medium of Death wrote:


I don't think telling Women to attack their attacker is a sensible idea considering the man may well be more physically capable. In fact it would probably lead to greater harm of the woman.

This just seems like an extension of "she was asking for it" argument because she couldn't physically defend herself.

Also

If someone wants t hit you with a tire iron would you fight them? Why? The attacker may me more physically capable. In fact it would probably lead to greater harm to yourself.
See how amazingly stupid that idea is?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Liberals think its better to be a victim than to defend yourself so when Ms. Nevada said women should learn to defend themselves, they freak out and ignore that despite laws, crimes still happen.

That is an extremely offensive remark.

In this case it appears to be accurate though.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Why not both??

I have no problem with people doing both. I just think it should not feel anywhere near a requirement to learn self-defense for women, just like it is not a requirement for men. But then again, I come from a different culture from most users, one where people do not feel like they need to carry a gun to be safe, and I would be extremely pissed if things would worsen that much that I started needing one to feel safe. So my perspective on self-defense may be quite different.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Liberals think its better to be a victim than to defend yourself so when Ms. Nevada said women should learn to defend themselves, they freak out and ignore that despite laws, crimes still happen.

Here's an idea: let's lose the broadly insulting generalizations, before certain individuals lose the right to post.

 Frazzled wrote:

Lets see.
Defend your self maybe avoid harm. Maybe rapist ends up in morgue if done right.
Maybe be harmed more.

Don't defend yourself.
Be raped.
Maybe be murdered.
Not seeing the downside.

This.

Rapes are generally prevented when things do not go well for the attacker. A victim that fights off an attack typically reacted in a confrontational way or caused a noise disturbance, etc that caused the would be rapist to back out of the attack.

I've yet to ever hear of rape not happening because the victim simply surrendered to the rapist.

Rape is typically about power and dominance if a victim is submissive it can actually trigger far worse abuse as the attacker is striving for a reaction of pain and submission from the victim.



.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Why not both??

I have no problem with people doing both. I just think it should not feel anywhere near a requirement to learn self-defense for women, just like it is not a requirement for men. But then again, I come from a different culture from most users, one where people do not feel like they need to carry a gun to be safe, and I would be extremely pissed if things would worsen that much that I started needing one to feel safe. So my perspective on self-defense may be quite different.

You never boxed or did martial arts or were in the Army?

Oh, come on. She was asked what we can do to solve the problem of sexual assault on colleges and her response was to train women to defend ourselves. There's so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start.

But let's start with that in sexual assault cases, the number where you are accosted by a random stranger jumping out of a bush at night is a tiny minority. Most are not placing you in a situation with a clear-cut adversary trying to attack you. Usually these are committed by friends, acquaintances, lovers. They aren't situations where "oh, if I punch them in the balls and run then everything will work out fine!"

A big part of the reason it's stupid is because the whole premise of the answer is that sexual assault is a violent attack and you can just defend yourself against it by knowing how to be violent back. Yes, maybe that could help in a minority of situations that fit that bill (though here you're at risk of running into "oh, it was her fault because she didn't fight hard enough," which is pretty awful) but most sexual assaults are not like that.

You're right. She should have also said:
*Don't get drunk.
*Don't go to frat boy parties (maybe ban frat boys).
*Stay away from the professors too.

This is real close to what my advice to GC is.

if you knee you date in the balls, that stops the date rape much better then doing nothing, letting him rape you, and then trying to prosecute him after the fact.

you can still knee him in the balls, run, avoid being raped, and still prosecute him for attempted rape.


if the problem is that we are not telling men not to rape people, then logically, when someone in a relationship says "no stop that, you are raping me" they would stop it... yet that is not what happens in date rape cases, the rapist, despite being told to stop, continues...

hence why actually being ABLE to stop it is quite important.