4 ms·

> People shouldn't base their lives and decisions around imagined scenarios that involve sociopaths. Women are constantly trying to figure out how much risk is

> People shouldn't base their lives and decisions around imagined scenarios that involve sociopaths. Women are constantly trying to figure out how much risk is attached to behaviors that men take for granted, and alter their behavior accordingly. It's all fine and well to say not to worry about "imagined scenarios" involving sociopaths, but there are many real life stories of women who have been stalked and received persistent death threats just for having a blog online and being only moderately well known. And in the case of something like check ins, any stalker wouldn't just have your email to send threats to, they would have your physical location. Unless you are a woman, I would suggest that you may not have the best perspective from which to tell other women what they should and should not be afraid of.

georgieporgie 15y ago
but there are many real life stories of women who have been stalked You're referencing scary anecdotes to refute my claim that you shouldn't base decisions on scary anecdotes. Unless you are a woman, I would suggest that you may not have the best perspective from which to tell other women what they should and should not be afraid of. Wow, that's sexist. One cannot assess risk unless one is within the target category? I bet you wouldn't be saying that to me if I took the more sexist and popular view that women need to be coddled and sheltered from the cruel, strange men on the streets. Here's a random tidbit from a web search: "Females are generally murdered by people they know. In 64% of female homicide cases in 2007, females were killed by a family member or intimate partner". I'm guessing that, as usual, women should be most wary of those to whom they're closest.
- batista 15y ago
  >You're referencing scary anecdotes to refute my claim that you shouldn't base decisions on scary anecdotes. Yeah, so how about basing them on statistics? Like the one that says that 1 in 4 women was sexually assaulted? >I bet you wouldn't be saying that to me if I took the more sexist and popular view that women need to be coddled and sheltered from the cruel, strange men on the streets. Coddled and sheltered no, but they should be vigilant about them. Are there as many street rape attacks on men? The numbers don't indicate so at all (not to mention that lots (most?) men wouldn't even consider a sexual attack by a woman unpleasant --except if they consider the woman ugly). >Here's a random tidbit from a web search: "Females are generally murdered by people they know. In 64% of female homicide cases in 2007, females were killed by a family member or intimate partner". Yes, that just leaves the other 36%. And that's on homicide. How about sexual assault? Even with similar or worse numbers, being most likely attacked by people you know is orthogonal to declaring your whereabouts. If the raper is that kid down the block of your house that's obsessed with you, does he also have to know that at 12:34 Friday night you are at that remote area?
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    Like the one that says that 1 in 4 women was sexually assaulted? How many of those are on the street by strangers? Does that include molestation? IIRC, 1 in 6 boys are molested in the US. Here is someone's take on the 1-in-4 figure: http://aspiringeconomist.com/index.php/2009/09/11/rape-statistics-1-in-4/ http://aspiringeconomist.com/index.php/2009/09/11/rape-stati... I don't think the 1-in-4 figure should be used when talking about the potential to be attacked and/or raped by strangers on the street. men wouldn't even consider a sexual attack by a woman unpleasant That's just more sexist B.S. If the raper is that kid ... you are at that remote area? Again, scary, fictional anecdotes. You're not going to sway me with that tactic.
    - batista 15y ago
      >>men wouldn't even consider a sexual attack by a woman unpleasant >That's just more sexist B.S. It's also true. Poll your buddies about it. But note how you disingenuously left out the part where I wrote "except if they considered that woman ugly". >Again, scary, fictional anecdotes. You're not going to sway me with that tactic. You confuse "anecdotes" with hypotheticals and scenarios. And fictional or not has nothing to do with whether something is possible. The scenario was meant to show that most rapes being done by people you know doesn't automatically mean that you would be OK to advertise your GPS position, because the category "people you know" also includes people that do not know your position (unlike say, an abusing father that does his "deed" at home, a stalking neighbor can attack you away from it).
      - georgieporgie 15y ago
        disingenuously left out Ugh. It's called brevity. Insert your whole statement if you want, it's still sexist B.S. You confuse "anecdotes" with hypotheticals No, but you seem to. You want me to poll friends (anecdotes) and you want to present hypotheticals. Either way, it doesn't matter, both are to be disregarded when making decisions. You can try to get into a semantic attack if you want, but it doesn't strengthen your (muddy) position any. fictional or not has nothing to do with whether something is possible. And whether something is possible is absolutely no way to make decisions in life. All kinds of things are possible. doesn't automatically mean that you would be OK to advertise your GPS position It would be awesome if you pointed out where I indicated anything like this. Really, you seem to have some kind of position in your mind that you imagine I'm holding, and it has nothing to do with anything I've said. Good day to you.
- tesseractive 15y ago
  1. Yes, I am. The normal response to trying to figure out whether or not to walk down a particular dark street or across a particular campus at night is not to pull up police records and perform a cluster analysis, it's to make a gut decision based on the cases of which you are aware. 2. Actually, I wasn't trying to say "men can't possibly know that", I was try to say that people who happen to have the firsthand experience of being a woman probably have more knowledge of the risks that women typically have to navigate than you do if you are male, unless you have had some reason to accumulate an unusual amount of information on the topic from firsthand sources. 3. Taking the condescending position that women need to to be coddled by men is very different from allowing that each woman needs to assess for herself what kinds and degrees of risks to her person that she is willing to accept and act accordingly. Whether you tell me that I am incapable of handling x situation myself and offer to shield me or you tell me that I should dismiss my worries about situation x because you know better, you are operating under the assumption that I cannot be trusted to assess the situation and act accordingly myself. I don't expect this is what you meant to say?
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    1) I don't understand why you're agreeing that you're using scary anecdotes to refute scary anecdotes and acting as if that is a defensible or valuable position. Decisions based upon fiction are not wise. See: Patriot Act, Iraq war, etc. 2) Being susceptible to or targeted by fear-based anecdotes does not make one more able to objectively evaluate them. Quite the opposite, in fact. 3) I don't know what you're talking about here. I was pointing out that your position is, in my opinion, fundamentally sexist, and that you likely wouldn't have batted an eye had I taken the more popular, sexist view.

georgieporgie 15y ago

but there are many real life stories of women who have been stalked You're referencing scary anecdotes to refute my claim that you shouldn't base decisions on scary anecdotes. Unless you are a woman, I would suggest that you may not have the best perspective from which to tell other women what they should and should not be afraid of. Wow, that's sexist. One cannot assess risk unless one is within the target category? I bet you wouldn't be saying that to me if I took the more sexist and popular view that women need to be coddled and sheltered from the cruel, strange men on the streets. Here's a random tidbit from a web search: "Females are generally murdered by people they know. In 64% of female homicide cases in 2007, females were killed by a family member or intimate partner". I'm guessing that, as usual, women should be most wary of those to whom they're closest.

batista 15y ago
>You're referencing scary anecdotes to refute my claim that you shouldn't base decisions on scary anecdotes. Yeah, so how about basing them on statistics? Like the one that says that 1 in 4 women was sexually assaulted? >I bet you wouldn't be saying that to me if I took the more sexist and popular view that women need to be coddled and sheltered from the cruel, strange men on the streets. Coddled and sheltered no, but they should be vigilant about them. Are there as many street rape attacks on men? The numbers don't indicate so at all (not to mention that lots (most?) men wouldn't even consider a sexual attack by a woman unpleasant --except if they consider the woman ugly). >Here's a random tidbit from a web search: "Females are generally murdered by people they know. In 64% of female homicide cases in 2007, females were killed by a family member or intimate partner". Yes, that just leaves the other 36%. And that's on homicide. How about sexual assault? Even with similar or worse numbers, being most likely attacked by people you know is orthogonal to declaring your whereabouts. If the raper is that kid down the block of your house that's obsessed with you, does he also have to know that at 12:34 Friday night you are at that remote area?
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  Like the one that says that 1 in 4 women was sexually assaulted? How many of those are on the street by strangers? Does that include molestation? IIRC, 1 in 6 boys are molested in the US. Here is someone's take on the 1-in-4 figure: http://aspiringeconomist.com/index.php/2009/09/11/rape-statistics-1-in-4/ http://aspiringeconomist.com/index.php/2009/09/11/rape-stati... I don't think the 1-in-4 figure should be used when talking about the potential to be attacked and/or raped by strangers on the street. men wouldn't even consider a sexual attack by a woman unpleasant That's just more sexist B.S. If the raper is that kid ... you are at that remote area? Again, scary, fictional anecdotes. You're not going to sway me with that tactic.
  - batista 15y ago
    >>men wouldn't even consider a sexual attack by a woman unpleasant >That's just more sexist B.S. It's also true. Poll your buddies about it. But note how you disingenuously left out the part where I wrote "except if they considered that woman ugly". >Again, scary, fictional anecdotes. You're not going to sway me with that tactic. You confuse "anecdotes" with hypotheticals and scenarios. And fictional or not has nothing to do with whether something is possible. The scenario was meant to show that most rapes being done by people you know doesn't automatically mean that you would be OK to advertise your GPS position, because the category "people you know" also includes people that do not know your position (unlike say, an abusing father that does his "deed" at home, a stalking neighbor can attack you away from it).
    - georgieporgie 15y ago
      disingenuously left out Ugh. It's called brevity. Insert your whole statement if you want, it's still sexist B.S. You confuse "anecdotes" with hypotheticals No, but you seem to. You want me to poll friends (anecdotes) and you want to present hypotheticals. Either way, it doesn't matter, both are to be disregarded when making decisions. You can try to get into a semantic attack if you want, but it doesn't strengthen your (muddy) position any. fictional or not has nothing to do with whether something is possible. And whether something is possible is absolutely no way to make decisions in life. All kinds of things are possible. doesn't automatically mean that you would be OK to advertise your GPS position It would be awesome if you pointed out where I indicated anything like this. Really, you seem to have some kind of position in your mind that you imagine I'm holding, and it has nothing to do with anything I've said. Good day to you.
tesseractive 15y ago
1. Yes, I am. The normal response to trying to figure out whether or not to walk down a particular dark street or across a particular campus at night is not to pull up police records and perform a cluster analysis, it's to make a gut decision based on the cases of which you are aware. 2. Actually, I wasn't trying to say "men can't possibly know that", I was try to say that people who happen to have the firsthand experience of being a woman probably have more knowledge of the risks that women typically have to navigate than you do if you are male, unless you have had some reason to accumulate an unusual amount of information on the topic from firsthand sources. 3. Taking the condescending position that women need to to be coddled by men is very different from allowing that each woman needs to assess for herself what kinds and degrees of risks to her person that she is willing to accept and act accordingly. Whether you tell me that I am incapable of handling x situation myself and offer to shield me or you tell me that I should dismiss my worries about situation x because you know better, you are operating under the assumption that I cannot be trusted to assess the situation and act accordingly myself. I don't expect this is what you meant to say?
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  1) I don't understand why you're agreeing that you're using scary anecdotes to refute scary anecdotes and acting as if that is a defensible or valuable position. Decisions based upon fiction are not wise. See: Patriot Act, Iraq war, etc. 2) Being susceptible to or targeted by fear-based anecdotes does not make one more able to objectively evaluate them. Quite the opposite, in fact. 3) I don't know what you're talking about here. I was pointing out that your position is, in my opinion, fundamentally sexist, and that you likely wouldn't have batted an eye had I taken the more popular, sexist view.