![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
There's an Internet conversation about rape, one post about which is here.
After reading that post, I saw several posts in which a woman said although she intellectually understands that many women fear men as potential rapists, she doesn't have that fear, and she has never been sexually assaulted, either because no one tried or because she defended herself with words or weapons.
I'm really glad that these women haven't suffered sexual assault or fear of sexual assault.
But I don't understand why a number of women are apparently responding to this conversation by saying that they aren't afraid of rape and don't have a general fear of men as potential rapists. Do they feel they should be afraid? I'm getting the impression that they feel not being afraid of rape makes them weird. Maybe that it makes them unfeminine somehow? Is this because our culture sends the message that all women should be afraid of rape?
I'm also not sure what I think about the suggestion that a certain attitude or body language -- specifically, attitude/body language that shows a lack of fear -- can prevent an assault from happening. I think it can make a difference in some situations--maybe a lot of situations. (I gather that it's part of what's taught at self-defense classes.) But I don't think it's any kind of guarantee. I know plenty of people who have a "don't mess with me" attitude/body language who have been assaulted.
(For the record, I haven't experienced sexual assault either. I have feared it in a few specific situations.)
After reading that post, I saw several posts in which a woman said although she intellectually understands that many women fear men as potential rapists, she doesn't have that fear, and she has never been sexually assaulted, either because no one tried or because she defended herself with words or weapons.
I'm really glad that these women haven't suffered sexual assault or fear of sexual assault.
But I don't understand why a number of women are apparently responding to this conversation by saying that they aren't afraid of rape and don't have a general fear of men as potential rapists. Do they feel they should be afraid? I'm getting the impression that they feel not being afraid of rape makes them weird. Maybe that it makes them unfeminine somehow? Is this because our culture sends the message that all women should be afraid of rape?
I'm also not sure what I think about the suggestion that a certain attitude or body language -- specifically, attitude/body language that shows a lack of fear -- can prevent an assault from happening. I think it can make a difference in some situations--maybe a lot of situations. (I gather that it's part of what's taught at self-defense classes.) But I don't think it's any kind of guarantee. I know plenty of people who have a "don't mess with me" attitude/body language who have been assaulted.
(For the record, I haven't experienced sexual assault either. I have feared it in a few specific situations.)
no subject
Date: 7 Jun 2009 06:32 pm (UTC)Edited to add:
Oh, the hell with it. Thank you for making my point so well.
If my journal goes friends-only in its entirety or is deleted later today, this is why. I'm sick of this, sick of the way I am reacting to it, and there's probably not anything I'm saying of value anyway, so nobody will miss it. I've got it backed up on Dreamwidth anyway, under total private-lock, so I'll have it in case I ever want to go back and look something up. But the hell with it.
no subject
Date: 7 Jun 2009 06:43 pm (UTC)Of course they have the right to derail in their own journals, to make it be about them--that's the point of my journal anyway, a place where I can make it be about me instead of whatever the subject was. I've done it, and been called on it, and defended my right to do it in my own journal. To little avail: my friends were still hurt by what I'd said.
Going off on a tangent is one of the best things about conversation, but it is kind of by definition derailing the original conversation.
i'm on another train heading south
Date: 7 Jun 2009 07:34 pm (UTC)of course if you leave the comment _and_ make it a post in your journal, yeah, then you are derailing. but just taking it elsewhere? hell, no.
people might still get hurt, of course. but that has nothing to do with derailing.
Re: i'm on another train heading south
Date: 7 Jun 2009 08:03 pm (UTC)So I've been told I was derailing a conversation when I responded to it in my own journal, and now I have other people (not the same as the first set) telling me that it's not derailing at all when people in their conversations do it.
The thing is, I think we're all in agreement that people have the right to do it in their own private spaces (be that their own journals or offline conversation with a friend). It's just that I'm calling it derailing (in line with how my behavior was labeled when I did it) and you're not.
Can derailing only be bad, then?
Re: i'm on another train heading south
Date: 7 Jun 2009 08:23 pm (UTC)i don't think of derailing as something good for the original train of thought, no (an actual train derailing has no good side effects, unless we're talking about, uh, "freedom fighters", and let's not :). on usenet occasionally a sidetrack would also be useful, but however much i enjoyed some thread drift, if it occurred too early, it usually put the kibosh on the original subject, and that's a pity. however, usenet readers are better software than most web forum software and LJ/DW, so one could at least try to stick with the original subject even if others wandered off. i think derailing is much worse on LD/DW and blogs that don't even have threads.
i can see certain circumstances under which i would say talking about a tangent in your journal after it started elsewhere is derailing -- if you leave a comment there with a linkback, for example. or if you continue to reply in the first place with feedback from what's going on in your journal discussion.
but in general, taking a tangent to your own journal is the very opposite of derailing. derailing means to distract the conversation from its focus. leaving the discussion to talk about related things in your own space instead of insisting that you must insert those 2 cents in some other space is a _good_ thing.
i wonder what odd definition these other people used, or whether it was totally self-serving.
Re: i'm on another train heading south
Date: 7 Jun 2009 08:25 pm (UTC)Re: i'm on another train heading south
Date: 7 Jun 2009 08:10 pm (UTC)So what I did - posting a comment, and reposting that same comment in my LJ - is derailing? Or does derailment imply intent? My intention was not to redirect the conversation in another direction, though apparantly I did, because I did not correctly understand the original statement. Derailment by accident (ignorance) is still derailment, yes?
Orrrrr, is it automatically derailing if you respond to the subject at hand and disagree?
I'm wordnoodling, by the way; not upset or offended or anything, just curious, kind of tired, and - curious. And words words words.
Re: i'm on another train heading south
Date: 7 Jun 2009 08:28 pm (UTC)Re: i'm on another train heading south
Date: 7 Jun 2009 08:32 pm (UTC)if the comment was at a clearly divergent tangent to the focus, then probably, yes. the derailment isn't the part where you post it in YOUR journal, it's the part where you post it in the other journal. if you only post your tangent in your own journal without mentioning it in the original discussion space, it's not derailment IMO.
example derailment:
person A starts talking about genital mutilation in african girls, and about how to raise awareness of it. several people chime in and discuss why this is a problem, how to inform others, what actions to take. then person B says in person A's journal: "well, a lot more little boys get mutilated by circumcision each year, isn't that a bigger problem?". that's derailment.
if person B instead started a post in zir own journal launching into an impassionated plea to stop male circumcision, that's not derailment.
Re: i'm on another train heading south
Date: 7 Jun 2009 08:42 pm (UTC)I don't think my comment was derailing, then. I think I did specifically address what I thought was the main point of the original post, and if it isn't actually the main post, it is at least part of the point, enough so that I've seen several comments along similar lines. Duck, rabbit, duck, rabbit, alligator.
bah humbug
Date: 7 Jun 2009 07:29 pm (UTC)listen: it is NOT derailing when you ponder in your own journal, away from the mainstream of the conversation. it's ridiculous to define that as derailing; that takes all meaning away from the word. the general conversation does not stop flowing because you say something contrary in your own space.
pondering in one's own journal is a good thing. other people can opt in (or not). you're not inserting your musings into somebody else's discussion, you're taking it elsewhere, which is precisely what should happen (and what unfortunately usenet didn't facilitate). and if that bothers somebody, then frankly, they can get stuffed.
i value your ponderings. don't you stop! (yeah, i know that's selfish, but it sounds like you'd be stopping for the wrong reasons.) definitely breathe. *walks off to start making something pretty for you*.